Preamble

The House met at Eleven o'clock

The Clerk at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence, through illness, of Mr. SPEAKER from this day's Sitting.

Whereupon Mr. GEORGE THOMAS, the CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS, proceeded to the Table and, after Prayers took the Chair, as DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Inflation

Mr. Molloy: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is satisfied with his existing policies for combating inflation.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is satisfied with the progress of his policies designed to reduce the rate of inflation.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Denis Healey): Inflation is too high at present. The social contract remains the basis of our policy for curbing inflation and safeguarding employment. The Government have acted on their side of the contract, but it is vital that the whole working population sees its responsibilities too. We must achieve strict adherence to the TUC guidelines on pay if our counter-inflation policy is to succeed and if employment is to be maintained.

Mr. Molloy: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that, in view of today's OECD report, rising inflation and the awful threat of more unemployment, there needs now to be much more co-operation from trade unionists with this Government, who have co-operated with them? Is there not now an urgent need for the unions to adopt the form of co-operation which has been shown by the Trades Union Congress? Does my right hon.

Friend agree that a massive endeavour is now required if we are to combat the evil threat of mass unemployment, which can hit trade unionists more than anybody else?

Mr. Healey: Yes. I welcome my hon. Friend's views. I am glad to know that he agrees with me that the Government's policy to carry out the programme they agreed with the TUC will depend critically on stricter adherence to the TUC guidelines on pay than has previously been achieved.

Mr. Brittan: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is no use continuing to mouth the old policies when it is clear that the guidelines are being broken again and again and that the social contract in its present form is absolutely dead? Surely the Chancellor will agree that if the social contract, in any form, is to be retained there will have to be a serious negotiation with the TUC on ways of monitoring the policy and tightening up of the guidelines?

Mr. Healey: The hon. Gentleman may be glad to know that the representative of OECD who was responsible for the report said on a Radio 4 programme this morning that he believed that the social contract was far from dead. However. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that some way of achieving stricter adherence to the guidelines is required.

Sir G. Howe: The Chancellor will no doubt agree, though, that the comments by the anonymous gentleman from OECD were somewhat guarded. Does he not agree also with the main observation of the OECD report that the present and prospective rate of inflation is still highly disturbing, and underlines again and again and again the point made by the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) that the very real and serious threat to employment in Britain arises from the risk of continuing inflation at the present rate, and it is of the highest degree of urgency for all wage settlements to take far greater account of this point than is currently happening under the social contract?

Mr. Healey: I do not think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman can lecture me on that point, because I have spoken—possibly to the boredom of many


hon. Members—continually on this matter for the past six to nine months. Perhaps our discussions would be a little more worth while if the right hon. and learned Gentleman would tell us, as he has strictly refrained from doing so far, whether he is in favour of a statutory pay policy and, if not, what sort of alternative to the social contract he would propose.

Mr. Rost: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the current rate of inflation.

Mr. Peter Morrison: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the present rate of inflation.

Mr. Healey: The increase in the retail prices index in the 12 months to February 1975 was 19·9 per cent. Over the last 12 months, overseas borrowing by public sector bodies has totalled some $2·9 billion. In addition, the total amount of the $2·5 billion Government loan with the clearing banks has now been drawn down.

Mr. Rost: Is it not alarmingly clear that after 18 months the Chancellor still has no effective policy to curb inflation? May I ask which half of the divided Cabinet is responsible for the nation's economic management?

Mr. Healey: I do not know which half of the whole Cabinet is responsible for the Government's policy, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that my own influence is not unsubstantial.

Mr. Morrison: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what effect withdrawal from the Common Market will have on the rate of inflation?

Mr. Healey: No, Sir.

Mr. Dykes: Since prevailing wage increases are higher than prevailing price increases, and will therefore pull up prices in the coming months, is it not essential to get a new norm in the social contract, to the effect that wage increases should be lower than the prevailing rate of price increases to reduce the rate of inflation?

Mr. Healey: I do not think that is required. I can tell the House that wage increases in the last six months are

bound to continue pushing up the retail price index for some months to come. On the other hand, the levelling-off in world prices will allow a steady decline in the retail price index towards the end of this year. That decline will be faster to the extent that the existing guidelines are observed.

Sir G. Howe: Since the Chancellor was yesterday making some kind of confessional and asserting two of the lessons he has learned in his first 12 months, will he acknowledge a third lesson he ought to learn, namely, the folly of his giving currency during the last election campaign to the inflation figure of 8·4 per cent., which has been wholly belied by his recent answer? Does he also acknowledge that one of the factors still contributing to the substantial rate of inflation is the high level of public expenditure, the commitment of the Government to expanding Government activities by the appointment of organisations like the National Enterprise Board and the land nationalisation agencies, all of which will contribute to the difficulty of keeping down wages in the public sector and so keeping down the rate of inflation?

Mr. Healey: The right hon. and learned Gentleman could perhaps learn a lesson now, which is that the figure of 8·4 per cent. as given as the rate of inflation for the three months to September of last year was used by the Common Market Commission, so often quoted by Conservative Members. The same determinate was used by the Price Commission, under the leadership of Sir Arthur Cockfield, the late tax adviser to the former Conservative Government.

Mr. Mike Thomas: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is now able to announce his co-ordinated poverty programme to protect the poor from the effect of inflation.

Mr. Healey: I am constantly in discussion with my colleagues on the co-ordination of our policies which affect the poor. The results are reflected in separate announcements of Government policy, a number of which I mentioned in my reply to my hon. Friend on 27th February.

Mr. Thomas: My hon. Friends and I welcome his acceptance of that responsibility for co-ordination, but will my right


hon. Friend take it that it seems at the moment to be, shall I say, passive? Many of us would like him to take an active role in this respect. If he accepts responsibility, will he take some steps now to exercise it?

Mr. Healey: I am not sure to what I should attribute my hon. Friend's vehemence, but he will know that a good many measures which I have taken in taxation matters have been calculated towards and have been effective in protecting the poor against the effect of inflation. A large number of other measures have been agreed by the Cabinet, with my consent, within the purview of other Ministers, such as the Secretary of State for Social Services and the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection. I assure my hon. Friend that, so far as my own departmental responsibilities go, I shall keep this requirement in the forefront of my mind.

Mr. David Howell: In reply to an earlier question, the Chancellor said that he did not intend the deficit of nationalised industries to fall upon the taxpayer—a very proper view to take—but he will recognise that the consequence is that it will fall upon individual consumers, whether poor or less poor, and upon the company consumer as well. Therefore, in the light of the almost certain increase in the cost of nationalised industries' products—even more certain if he is unable to do anything to curb the vast wage increases now being sought in the nationalised industries—will the right hon. Gentleman set out in detail the way in which he will protect the poor and those companies which are in a dangerously illiquid position from the large increases in prices which will inevitably follow from the very proper undertaking which he has now given?

Mr. Healey: I have set those out in detail in various statements, several of which were mentioned in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Thomas) on 27th February and most of which, I imagine, the hon. Gentleman heard in the House. I must, however, remind the hon. Gentleman of one fact, which, since his right hon. and learned Friend referred yesterday to my speech at the Mansion House, may be worth stating again. I

think that there is now general agreement on both sides of the House that the major cause of the inflation now racking Britain is the excessive increase in the money supply which took place in the last year of the previous Conservative Government. I was glad to see that the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) nodded his head vigorously when I said that yesterday, and I am sure that the Leader of the Opposition will now concur, although she was a member of the Government who were responsible for that large increase in the money supply.

Mr. Horam: May I press my right hon. Friend further on the matter raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Thomas), which causes great anxiety on the Government side of the House? We want to know what kind of interdepartmental machinery has been or will be established to co-ordinate these efforts. Interdepartmental co-ordination is what we are interested in. Secondly, will my right hon. Friend consider publishing an annual report examining all aspects of poverty right across the board, as it is affected by the work of several different Departments?

Mr. Healey: It has never been the practice of any Government to give details of the composition and functions of various Cabinet committees, but I assure my hon. Friend that there is a Cabinet committee, of which I am chairman, which keeps continued supervision over the effect of various Government measures on the worse-off in our community. I shall consider my hon. Friend's suggestion that there might be some regular publication covering this ground, but I cannot commit myself at the moment.

Mr. Nott: As the Chancellor has referred to the money supply. I remind him that in the current period public expenditure is running at about 10 per cent. higher, in real terms, than the figures proposed on 17th December 1973. How will that help him control the money supply and keep it down to the level which he proposes?

Mr. Healey: I am glad to pay tribute to the savage attacks which the hon. Gentleman launched, before he joined the


Opposition Front Bench, on the monetary policy of the Government of which he was a member, and I am sure that he will be aware that over the past 12 months we have succeeded in keeping the rate of increase in the money supply, whether M1 or M3, far below the rate of increase in the GNP, in money terms.

Dividend Restraint

Mr. MacGregor: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will now abolish dividend restraint.

The Paymaster-General (Mr. Edmund Dell): No, Sir; there has been no change in the position since my right hon. Friend informed the House on 2nd July 1974 that he intended to carry out a comprehensive review of the controls later this year. The Royal Commission on the Distribution of Income and Wealth has been asked to assemble some of the factual information for the review, and to report by the early summer.

Mr. MacGregor: Does not the Paymaster-General recognise that the continuation of the policy of dividend restraint is having increasingly damaging effects, including distortions in the capital market; penalties, and therefore disincentives, to savers whose returns are not keeping pace with inflation; and, above all, perhaps, disadvantages for pension funds in terms of their revenue flow and, hence, potentially for many millions of pension fund holders? In the light of all these facts and of the fact that we cannot wait for the report of the Royal Commission, will not the right hon. Gentleman reconsider this policy?

Mr. Healey: I think that we can wait for the report of the Royal Commission, and the arguments the hon. Gentleman adduced will no doubt be seen in better perspective against the facts presented by the commission.

Mr. Horam: Does the Paymaster-General agree that the abolition of commercial rent control went a long way to meet the genuine point made by the hon. Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. MacGregor)?

Mr. Dell: We believed that that was vitally necessary at that moment. That is why we did it.

Mr. Norman Lamont: Will the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that if it is the Government's aim to penalise the rich for the purpose of the social contract, that purpose is better achieved through the taxation system? Does he not agree that dividend control is a blunt instrument, which penalises alike the poor, the investor, the pension fund and the charity? Is it not a fact that the increases now allowed are well below the going rate of inflation, and that that is the unfairness of the system?

Mr. Dell: The hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends have not shown any marked enthusiasm recently for the Government's taxation proposals. As for the matter of dividend restraint or the abolition of these controls, that is a matter which we shall consider when we receive the report.

Nationalised Industries

Mr. Gow: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is satisfied with the rate at which nationalised industries are reducing the need for subsidy in their operations.

Mr. Dell: Yes, Sir. The phasing out of subsidies for price restraint by the gas and electricity industries and the Post Office is likely to be completed by 1976–77. The railways and, to a much lesser extent, the coal industry will be given continued support for social reasons.

Mr. Gow: Will the Paymaster-General reconsider the last part of his answer? Does he not agree that it is essential that the resolution of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in this matter be sustained? Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House of the favourable consequences of that part of the Chancellor's policies in respect of which he is remaining firm so far as the Budget deficit is concerned?

Mr. Dell: In reply to the last part of the supplementary question, I cannot give any figures about the Budget deficit. As to the first part, I do not think hon. Members opposite are in a position to complain about my right hon. Friend's resolution. Hon. Members opposite handed over to us a vast deficit on this account, which we are now trying to correct.

Mr. Mike Thomas: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that these increases in nationalised industry prices bear heavily on those least able to meet them, and that increases in benefits may not be enough to alleviate the problem, particularly in respect of electricity prices? Will my right hon. Friend say what he proposes to do about them?

Mr. Dell: As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy indicated recently, he has asked the electricity industry to weight the electricity price increases in favour of the small consumer. Something similar was done in respect of the gas price increases earlier in the year. I believe that the main emphasis here in helping to alleviate the undoubted problem to which my hon. Friend refers must be through the social security system.

Mr. Moate: Is the Paymaster-General aware that if the present railway fare proposals are accepted, railway fares will have gone up by about 43 per cent. in 12 months, and yet British Rail is still faced with a continuing and massive deficit? Is it not a fact that the finances of nationalised industry are out of control?

Mr. Dell: Most railways throughout the world, I believe, receive Government subsidy of one kind or another. The facts to which the hon. Gentleman has referred are very relevant in the current claims of the railway industry.

Mr. Nott: If there are excessive wage claims in the public sector which go beyond the guidelines of the social contract, will it be the Chancellor's policy to push these extra costs through into the prices of the nationalised industries as a matter of policy?

Mr. Dell: This is an inevitable result of excessive wage claims in these industries. Prices will have to go up very much faster.

Wages

Mr. Norman Lamont: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will make a statement upon the different movement of wage increases in the public and private sectors, and their implications for the Government's anti-inflationary policies.

Mr. Healey: Since the abolition of statutory pay control, there has been little difference between the public and private sectors in the level of settlements, excluding the special cases. The rate of settlement throughout the economy as a whole nevertheless remains too high, and this is why we have repeatedly called for strict adherence to the spirit of the TUC guidelines if we are to avoid the twin evils of rapid inflation and rising unemployment.

Mr. Lamont: The right hon. Gentleman may be aware that the recent apparent moderation in the rate of increase in the latest figures is obviously encouraging, but has he noticed that there have been some estimates from sources which he has quoted on other occasions that the rate of increase in the public sector is increasing, or is at least not falling? Does he agree that the fact that the public sector is so removed from the normal market influence is worrying and is another argument for saying that the public sector should not be extended?

Mr. Healey: I have looked carefully into this matter. The evidence is not unambiguous, but there is no conclusive evidence that so far the public sector settlements have been substantially in excess of those in the private sector. Both have been running at about the same rate. I recognise the force of what the hon. Gentleman says and I should tell the House that I have no intention of allowing excessive settlements in the public sector to be loaded on to the taxpayer.

Mr. Rost: Has the right hon. Gentleman recommended to his Cabinet colleagues that the guidelines of the social contract should be tightened up?

Mr. Healey: No, Sir.

Fee-paying Schools

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the estimated total cost to the Exchequer of treating private fee-paying schools as charities; and whether he will now take steps to end the tax advantage of this status as it affects them.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Dr. John Gilbert): The information on which to base a reply to the first part of the Question is not available. As


to the second part of the Question, my right hon. Friend intends to pursue this matter as part of the wider question of the appropriate definition of a charity, as was mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary during the Committee stage of the Finance Bill.—[Official Report, Standing Committee A; 5th February 1975, c. 914.]

Mr. Hamilton: Does my hon. Friend not agree that the Donnison Commission, which reported as long ago as 1968, produced figures and, therefore, it should not be impossible to update those figures? Does he recognise that the commission pointed out that there were 900 private schools which were regarded as charities, including all the public schools, like Eton and Harrow, which got enormous tax and rate concessions, which means subsidising the children of rich people? Will not the Labour Government now carry out their manifesto pledge to protect the poor and remove this kind of subsidisation of these people, which they do not deserve?

Dr. Gilbert: I shall be very surprised if my hon. Friend really believes that the Government have been subsidising the rich. There are some serious difficulties. The available figures of tax relief for charities do not distinguish between fee-paying schools and other charities. Secondly, they relate only to repayments of tax deducted at source.
As to the wider question which my hon. Friend has raised, I assure him that there is no difference between us.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Will the hon. Gentleman say what is the total saving to the Exchequer resulting from the fact that these children are educated at the expense of their parents and not at the expense of the State?

Dr. Gilbert: The real question is what pre-emption of very scarce resources is involved—

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: That is not what I asked.

Dr. Gilbert: But that is the important point—what pre-emption of very scarce and extremely skilled resources is made available to an extremely small and narrow section of the community.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The

Minister, I think inadvertently, answered the wrong question.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is a very old complaint in this place.

Value Added Tax

Mr. Jim Marshall: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what consideration has been given to relieving the operation of fixed coin weighing machines of value added tax.

Dr. Gilbert: This question has been fully considered as a result of previous representations by my hon. Friend, but for the reasons I have outlined to him in correspondence I regret that his proposal cannot be accepted.

Mr. Marshall: Is my hon. Friend not prepared to reconsider that decision? I believe he is aware that I have written to him on this subject in the past. Is he further aware that these firms are being asked to pay a tax in respect of the consumer but which they find impossible to levy on the consumer? Is he further aware that as a consequence they have to pay 8 per cent. of their gross income, which has a disastrous effect upon their net profit? Will my hen. Friend reconsider the urgent need for zero rating these firms?

Dr. Gilbert: I am aware of the difficulties that my hon. Friend has put forward. He will be aware that anomalies are confined to machines like launderettes and weighing machines. With vending machines that sell confectionery it is possible for the amount sold to be adjusted to take account of the tax. I am sorry to have to say that, having looked at this question closely, as did the previous administration, we have found that it is not practicable to select one type of vending machine for zero rating.

Mr. MacFarquhar: Has my hon. Friend received any request from small businesses in other industries for permission to delay VAT payments to help them with their cash flow problems? Will he at least permit Her Majesty's Customs and Excise to talk to such firms to see whether there is any possibility of such a delay?

Dr. Gilbert: Offhand I am not aware of any recent representations to that effect. One of the features of VAT is that it improves the cash flow of many firms,


because they receive the input tax deduction before they have to account to Customs and Excise for the output tax.

Mr. Moate: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many letters he has received opposing the introduction of additional rates of VAT.

Dr. Gilbert: My right hon. Friend has received about 1,200 such letters, of which approximately 900 come from retail pharmacists. Other letters expressing similar views have been received by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise, which has informed Ministers of the views that they have expressed.

Mr. Moate: Are the Government aware of the widespread feeling that the present system for the collection of VAT and many of the VAT returns imposes an extra burden, particularly on small and medium-sized businesses? Is he aware that it would be intolerable to complicate the system further by introducing multi-rate VAT?

Dr. Gilbert: We are aware of the problems that VAT has entailed for the small business man. Customs and Excise has recently introduced a whole array of further simplified schemes after prolonged discussions with various trade associations aimed at helping such businesses as best it can.

Mr. Spearing: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not only a question of increasing additional rates of VAT but of keeping within the power of this House the imposition of VAT rates on articles now exempted, such as food, travel and fuel? Will he tell the House why his Department and the Departments of some of his hon. Friends insist that, despite the economic convergence assumed if we stay in the Community, we need not put VAT on any of these things which are exempt or zero-rated at the moment?

Dr. Gilbert: We have always made it clear that in no circumstances would we agree to a harmonisation which covered foodstuffs. There is a great variety of rates and structures in the various countries of the Community and it is relatively fruitless now to speculate precisely where harmonisation would end up.

Sir G. Howe: Will the Financial Secretary now answer the question posed by

my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate)? I put this seriously and in no partisan sense, it being a most important matter. Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that any decision by the Government to introduce a multi-rate VAT system would put a substantial additional burden on many of those who are now responsible for collection, that to move in that direction would be to threaten the entire system of tax collection and would cause grave inconvenience and harm to many small traders, and that the Government ought to reject the idea out of hand here and now.

Dr. Gilbert: Speculation of the sort in which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has just indulged is based on all sorts of assumptions, for which he has no foundation whatever, as to the shape and size of a multi-rate system if one were to be introduced.

European Community (Membership)

Mr. Britian: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will make a statement about contingency plans to protect the British economy in the event of a British withdrawal from the EEC.

Mr. Healey: The Government have recommended to the British people to vote for staying in the Community. I am, of course, always prepared to revise my economic policies if necessary, in the light of changed circumstances.

Mr. Britian: Is it none the less not important, in view of the risk of a "No" vote, to make contingency plans for what would happen if there were withdrawal from the Common Market? If that is so, does the Minister not accept that it will involve co-ordination between a number of Government Departments? Will that not he an impossible task? Some of the Ministers will be in favour of staying in and some will be in favour of coming out which will mean that the views they form on contingency plans will differ radically.

Mr. Healey: As the hon. Gentleman will know if he has consulted his right hon. and hon. colleagues on the Opposition Front Bench, consultation between Departments is an osmotic and continuing process under all Governments.

Mr. Molloy: Does my right hon. Friend not agree that many people in the


House and throughout our nation believe that one reason for our difficult situation is the absurd terms agreed when entering the EEC? Does he not further agree that while a "No" vote will enhance our chances of economic recovery—[Interruption.] I hope that some of the pro-Market horny-handed sons of the soil behind me will not laugh at this. Does my right hon. Friend not agree that it will be the endeavours of the British working people which will put this country right, and not the fancy theories of some economists?

Mr. Healey: I agree with my hon. Friend that the theories of economists rarely put anything right. I also agree with him if what he implied in his latter remarks was that, irrespective of whether we remain a member of the Community, our economic salvation lies overall and overwhelmingly in our own hands.

Mr. Moate: Had the Government not secured these modest changes in the terms they would have been recommending withdrawal. Must it not be sheer nonsense for some of the right hon. Gentleman's Cabinet colleagues now to say that it would be catastrophic if Britain were to withdraw from the Community? What adverse effects does the right hon. Gentleman consider as being likely to arise from a "No" vote?

Mr. Healey: The hon. Member will not succeed in drawing me on the latter point. I can tell him—it is important that we should recognise this—that the critical problems which require resolution if this country is to improve its economic performance are problems which it is within our power to resolve, irrespective of whether we are in the Community. The terms the Government have renegotiated will make it easier for us to resolve those problems as members of the Community.

Mr. Mike Thomas: Nevertheless, does my right hon. Friend not accept that the British people are entitled to know what plans the Government have in the event of a "No" vote and are entitled to know in a clear statement what the cost would be?

Mr. Healey: The important thing for the House to recognise—the previous Government recognised this in much of the information they published—is that the economic gains and losses to be derived

from membership of the Community are extremely difficult to calculate. They are the subject of great dispute among experts who supported entry and those who opposed it. On the other hand, I must tell my hon. Friend that a decision to leave the Community is very different from a decision not to join it. The economic consequences of doing so would be very much more grave.

Motor Industry

Mr. Hal Miller: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from the motor industry relating to fiscal policy in relation to the industry; and what reply he has given.

Mr. Dell: The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, the Motor Agents' Association and the Ford Motor Company have written to my right hon. Friend with a number of proposals designed to improve the prospects of the industry. He has replied saying that he will bear their representations in mind.

Mr. Miller: Does the right hon. Gentleman understand the dire effect on the motor industry and those employed in it of working below capacity, and do the Government accept that we should try to aim at achieving a constant rate of output in the industry, so far as that is practicable?

Mr. Dell: We fully understand the difficulties facing the industry at this moment, and we recognise that it is desirable that the industry should increase its production.

Abortion

Dr. Boyson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is satisfied that he is receiving the full taxation due on fees for private abortions done in Great Britain.

Dr. Gilbert: No, Sir. if the hon. Member has any particular case in mind and will let me have details, I shall be glad to have it looked into.

Dr. Boyson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a recently published book, "Babies for Burning", which had wide publicity in this country, has one constant theme—that doctors operating or doing abortions privately were always demanding payment in cash and that advice was


given by a named charity in London that payment had to be in cash? Does this not call for some form of investigation, to see whether that book's allegations are right?

Dr. Gilbert: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman appreciates that it is far easier to make allegations of that sort than it is to sustain them with evidence which could be supported in a criminal prosecution. I repeat that if he, or any other hon. Member, has evidence of abuses of that sort I shall be only too happy to look into them.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY (MEMBERSHIP)

Mr. Tim Renton: asked the Lord President of the Council what plans he has to meet the leaders of the umbrella organisations in connection with continued EEC membership.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon): I have been asked to reply.
The Lord President met representatives of the European Movement and the National Referendum Campaign last month, and officials are in frequent contact with Britain in Europe and the National Referendum Campaign.

Mr. Renton: May we be assured that, in meeting these umbrella organisations, the Lord President will take up a totally impartial attitude in relation to the coming referendum? Second, in view of the unique event of public funds being made available to these non-political bodies, will a public account of these meetings be made available?

Mr. Lyon: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will be taking a completely impartial attitude towards the organisation of the referendum, although his personal view, of course, is in favour of our continued membership of the Community. On the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question, the best thing I can say is that my right hon. Friend will be prepared to answer questions about any aspect of the negotiations and give such details as are available from time to time.

Mr. Mike Thomas: If at 11.40 a.m., with only one Question to go, I am permitted to ask a slightly longer supple-

mentary question, that being in your interest, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and that of everyone else—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Even on Maundy Thursday, the hon. Gentleman will realise that another four hon. Members rose to ask supplementary questions when he did.

Mr. Thomas: Will my hon. Friend make some statement on the provision for United Kingdom citizens who are permanently resident in the Community countries and who appear to be denied the vote under the proposals which have been announced in the Press this morning?

Mr. Lyon: As I understand it the matter is under consideration, but if my hon. Friend wishes to put down a Question to that effect my right hon. Friend will be pleased to answer it.

Mr. Moate: Is it the case that the Government are anxious to bring forward the referendum date? What approximate time scale do they now have in mind?

Mr. Lyon: That is rather wide of this Question. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to put down a Question on that matter my right hon. Friend will answer it.

Mr. Molloy: Will my hon. Friend convey to the Leader of the House that it is essential that there should be equal opportunities for fair presentation of the arguments on both sides and that there should be no advantage one way or the other?

Mr. Lyon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for asking a question on which I have a note for a supplementary answer. I am happy to tell him that the two sides have had discussions with the Lord President, that they have agreed to prepare a statement of their sides of the case which will be of no more than 2,000 words, and that each of these statements will be produced as a separate pamphlet and distributed at public expense in order to put the respective cases dispassionately.

Mr. Gow: Will the Minister tell the House what representations were made to the Lord President by the leaders of the umbrella organisations in regard to those


on holiday having the right to vote in the referendum?

Mr. Lyon: I have no information about that aspect of their representations, but, again, my right hon. Friend will be pleased to answer any of these questions when the Bill is discussed in its progress through the House.

Mr. Spearing: Since one of the objectives of the grant to the so-called umbrella organisations is to try to rectify a clear imbalance in resources, can my right hon. Friend give any information about the reasons for the relatively modest sum mentioned in the Bill? Since the House is being asked to make amendments, possibly before Second Reading, and in the first week after the recess, will my hon. Friend give the reasons of the Leader of the House for providing that sum and the criteria on which it has been based?

Mr. Lyon: It seemed to the Government that a grant of £125,000 to each of the organisations was, to say the least, a little more than modest, and was a reasonable contribution to each side to put its case. There is no limit to the amount which may be spent by any of the organisations, and no doubt each of them will be appealing to the public for funds.

Sir G. Howe: Will the Minister, who seems to be functioning this morning rather as an umbrella Minister—with rather less than a fully covered umbrella—convey to the Lord President and his colleagues the very great strength of feeling about the fact that people who are on holiday and who are living outside this country should be entitled to vote in the referendum on the footing that on this occasion, as opposed to a General Election campaign, there will be sufficient time for the registration officers to accommodate applications if the arrangements are set in hand almost immediately? This is a significant point of view which is widely held.

Mr. Lyon: I can certainly acknowledge the strength of feeling about this matter in certain areas. It is a point which would be properly dealt with in consideration of the Bill, and no doubt the right hon. and learned Gentleman will wish to table an amendment to that effect.

ONE-PARENT FAMILIES (MINISTER'S SPEECH)

Mrs. Hayman: asked the Prime Minister if the public speech on one-parent families by the Secretary of State for Social Services at the conference of the National Council for One-Parent Families on 21st February represents the policies of Her Majesty's Government.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): Yes, Sir.

Mrs. Hayman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that that answer, like the speech, will be greeted with great disappointment by the many one-parent families in this country? Does he agree that the 1 million children of one-parent families are the largest group of children in the country who are potentially the most economically and socially vulnerable? Will he undertake to reconsider the guaranteed maintenance allowance, accepting that a special cash benefit would be the most important help that could be given to these families?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend about the special category here and the amount of poverty, which in many cases is concealed. She will know that the Finer Report had 200 recommendations and that in this, as in all matters of social services and health, we are having to proceed in accordance with priorities. A considerable amount has been done within the Finer Report to help. My hon. Friend who has studied this matter so fully will know what has been done and I shall not outline it now. The particular point that she mentioned is being considered in relation to other social service and health priorities and general priorities, and also against the very severe constraints on public spending which must operate at this time.

Mrs. Thatcher: Is the Prime Minister aware that he would get a great deal of support from this side of the House if he were to consider transferring some of the money at present spent on indiscriminate food subsidies to help one-parent families? We are not asking him to increase public expenditure. We know his difficulties—all Governments have difficulties—but some of us think it wrong that our


needs should take priority over the needs of this group.

The Prime Minister: Yes, but so little has been done in this area. Of course, all families benefit from the food subsidies to the extent of about 7p in the pound in the shopping basket, and that includes the one-parent families. This is a matter of priorities. We are proceeding with great urgency. The point raised by my hon. Friend is being considered, but I cannot give any assurance about timing at this stage.

COMMONWEALTH PRIME MINISTERS (MEETING)

Mr. Mike Thomas: asked the Prime Minister what subjects he proposes to raise at the meeting of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers in Jamaica.

The Prime Minister: We shall, of course, be discussing a wide range of issues at Kingston. In particular, I shall use the opportunity to develop some of the ideas on world trade in commodities which I mentioned in my speech at Leeds on 9th February.
Following the normal practice, the agenda for the Heads of Government Meeting is co-ordinated by the Commonwealth Secretary-General in consultation with the Heads of Government. These consultations are confidential.

Mr. Thomas: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Will he say what progress he has made on the question of commodities, because this is a vital aspect of trade to Commonwealth and developing countries? When he meets his colleagues in Jamaica will he take the opportunity to confirm that every Commonwealth Government now wish Britain to remain within the EEC?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend's first point is the subject of an initiative which we are taking, which was begun in my talks with President Ford in Washington. It has been further discussed with a number of Commonwealth Prime Ministers who have visited this country, including the Prime Ministers of New Zealand, Guyana and Canada. It is of vital importance, particularly to developing countries and certain producers, because we want more security and

stability in food production for consumers and on the question of fertilisers and feeding stuffs. This is a very complicated issue. The problem has never been solved on past occasions, and it is important that some progress is made.
I am quite sure that the subjects we shall be discussing will permit the question of the EEC to be raised by anyone who wishes to raise it, whether the United Kingdom or any of the many other countries. However, I confirm what I said in the House and what my hon. Friend has just repeated, that all, or practically all, of the independent Commonwealth countries have indicated their desire that we should stay in the Community.

Mr. Tim Renton: Does the Prime Minister agree that commodities represent a very good area for EEC intervention, and that the setting up of an EEC fund, for example, for mineral development overseas, could be a very appropriate area for EEC activities?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Member is right, and I think he will be aware that in the Lomé Convention a beginning was made—all sides of the House will welcome this—in commodity stabilisation, although the funds for this are relatively limited. In the Heads of Government summit in Dublin a fortnight ago, I made a fairly lengthy statement to the other Heads of Government on the lines of the initiative which I have already described, and it was warmly welcomed by those who spoke. We shall, of course, consult them in the furtherance of this initiative, which some of them have been pursuing in different ways overseas.

CITY OF LONDON

Mr. Molloy: asked the Prime Minister when he next expects to visit the City of London.

The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans to do so, Sir.

Mr. Molloy: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the many warm expressions that have emanated from some parts of the City about the increase in British exports in the past quarter? Does he agree that in view of this welcome change of heart in


some parts of the City, those other parts that maintain their myopic hostility to Labour Government should drop it?

The Prime Minister: It is true that the recent trend in the balance of payments has been warmly welcomed in the City. One cannot judge long-term trends from even three months—although I have known people who have tried to judge them on the basis of a single month's figures—but it is a fact that—and here the City, with its increasing invisible earnings, has made a significant contribution—over the past month or two we have seen the non-oil deficit, which was very big last year, turned into a surplus. It will be the hope of every hon. Member, as well as everyone in the City, that this trend will be maintained. We still have the oil deficit to meet, but progress has been made. The important thing now is to ensure that everything is done, both internally and externally, to maintain that progress.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Will the Prime Minister visit the City and other parts of London to collect opinions about the forthcoming visit of Mr. Shelepin and then issue clear instructions on whether that gentleman is to receive official entertainment?

The Prime Minister: I know the interest taken by the hon. and gallant Gentleman in these matters. I visit the City frequently, and when I do not do so I have representative City leaders to No. 10, as I did last Monday night. We have regular dinners here in Westminster and in the City. Last week I met the BIA. I always invite the City leaders to say anything that they have on their minds. They have a great deal to say about financial, economic and industrial matters, but not one of them has so far raised the question of Mr. Shelepin. This is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who has answered a Question on it.

Mr. Henderson: When the Prime Minister visits the City of London, will he look into the question of the London weighting allowance, and take into account the fact that many people in Scotland feel it a great injustice, when they suffer similar cost pressures, that there is no similar allowance for them? With his well-known sense of fairness

and consideration for Scotland, will the right hon. Gentleman seek speedily to put that matter right?

The Prime Minister: It is not a subject that I could explore satisfactorily within the City of London. The London weighting allowance is not confined to the Square Mile. The Scottish question has been raised a number of times. It was not raised with me on my two recent visits to Scotland, but I am well aware of the feelings expressed by the hon. Gentleman, and I am grateful for the kind reference he made to me.

CABINET PAPERS

Mr. Gow: asked the Prime Minister whether he will reduce the present 30 years' ban on the publication of Cabinet papers.

The Prime Minister: Following the initiative which I took in March 1966, the Public Records Act 1967 reduced the period of protection for public records, including Cabinet documents, from 50 to 30 years. I have no evidence at present that a further change is required.

Mr. Gow: Will the Prime Minister please reconsider that answer, in the light of the circumstances of the referendum—circumstances which he has described as unique? Does he not think that it would help the country to debate the matter without rancour if the spirit of comradely love and brotherly unity in the Cabinet could be displayed for all the British people to see when they are discussing the subject?

The Prime Minister: It is not only in the Cabinet that that spirit is to be found. The meeting with the National Executive Committee of the Labour Party yesterday was full of such manifestations. I hope that the Opposition will be able to follow us in these matters, because it is a unique occasion. It is a question that cuts across parties. But I do not think that the Public Records Act is involved. I wanted to cut the ban from 50 to 25 years, but I could not get the agreement of the Conservative Party to any cut until I said that I would put the proposal in our 1966 election manifesto. There was then a speedy change of heart, and we got the period down to 30 years.
The hon. Gentleman will no doubt know that a committee of Privy Councillors is being set up. I announced it last Friday, and I hope to make a statement in the House after Easter. The hon. Gentleman will be able to give evidence if he wishes, and no doubt the Committee will consider his weighty arguments.

Mr. Lawson: Does the Prime Minister agree that the 30-year rule has already been side-stepped to a certain extent by the Grossman Diaries? In the light of those diaries, for the sake of posterity and historical accuracy, will the right hon. Gentleman incorporate in the next edition of his own work, "The Labour Government 1964–70; A Personal Record", the various corrections needed to make good the many errors pointed out by Mr. Crossman, particularly in the events relating to the 1967 devaluation?

The Prime Minister: If I were to deal in any subsequent edition of my book with some of the points raised in the recent publication in The Sunday Times, the book, already very long, would be even longer. Those who are in a position to know about these things know that many of the attributed statements took place on occasions when they could not have taken place, in places where the relevant people were not present at the time. I am sorry to say that a high proportion of the attributed quotations were either made by Mr. Crossman himself or were not made at all.
My memoirs were submitted to the Cabinet Office in the usual way, and all the corrections that it asked me to make, which were very few, I made. [An HON. MEMBER: "Advertising."] The advertising was started by the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson). I could not want a better sales promoter of the book—which is now in paperback, and therefore cheaper, I hasten to inform the hon. Gentleman. The rules were followed in that case.
There have been difficulties. This is one of a number of reasons why the committee of Privy Councilors has been set up. The right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition has been asked to suggest Privy Councillors from her side of the political divide, whether Members of the House or not.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY (MEMBERSHIP)

Mr. Norman Lamont: asked the Prime Minister whether the Government have yet decided their attitude towards the conclusion of the renegotiation of British membership of the EEC.

Mrs. Wise: asked the Prime Minister whether the Government are satisfied with the outcome of the EEC negotiations.

Mr. Skinner: asked the Prime Minister if the Government are satisfied with the outcome of the renegotiation of the EEC entry terms.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member and my hon. Friends to the statement which I made to the House on 18th March.

Mr. Lamont: I welcome the Government's recommendation. On the question of ministerial responsibility, is there any truth in Press reports that the Government are considering allowing Ministers to speak from the back benches in the debate on the renegotiated terms after Easter?

The Prime Minister: I do not comment on Press reports. Most of those that I have read this week on the subject have proved to be wide of the mark, particularly the prognostications about the comradely meeting yesterday to which reference has already been made. I do not expect the hon. Gentleman to have to face formidable competition from a regiment of Ministers speaking from the back benches if he should seek to catch the eye of the Chair in the debate.

Mrs. Wise: How can my right hon. Friend possibly be satisfied with the renegotiations, considering that they have signally failed to reassert the authority of Parliament, and in view also of the signal failure to reassert control over our own steel industry?

The Prime Minister: I do not agree with my hon. Friend's diagnosis. I did not say in my statement of 18th March that I was completely satisfied. I said that there were certain things that we had hoped for that we had not obtained in the form we had sought, but that we had broadly achieved the purposes of


our renegotiations. I also said that in the light of the improvements we had obtained in the renegotiations and certain changes in the Community during the period of the renegotiations, I believed that continued membership was the best thing for Britain, Europe, the Commonwealth and the wider world.

Mrs. Thatcher: I know that the Prime Minister will not comment on Press comments, but will he make an explicit statement about what arrangements he has made for dissenting Ministers in relation to supplementary answers given from the Dispatch Box and any comments they might make to the House?

The Prime Minister: I have already answered a question on this matter and have set out the position. When the right hon. Lady has studied it, I shall be glad to answer any more questions which she may have on the subject. All Ministers speaking from the Dispatch Box will reflect Government policy in this matter.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY (BUSINESS)

The Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Roy Hattersley): With your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement about business to be taken in the Council of Ministers of the European Community during April. The monthly forecast for April was deposited yesterday.
At present four meetings of the Council of Ministers are proposed for April. Foreign Ministers will meet on 14th-15th, Finance Ministers on 21st, Energy Ministers on 24th, and Agriculture Ministers on 28th-29th April.
At the Foreign Affairs Council, Ministers will have before them a report on the completion of the negotiations of a trade agreement with Israel. They will also have a report on the present state of the negotiations with the Maghreb. In addition, there will be an initial discussion of the draft mandates for negotiation with the Mashraq. Ministers will also consider Commission proposals on raw materials, supplementary budgets Nos. 1 and 2 for 1975, the former principally covering the Regional Development Fund, and the preparations for the conference on consumer-producer relations.
The agenda for the Finance Ministers Council is not yet certain but Ministers expect to discuss, among other things, the economic situation in the Community and gold.
The agenda for the Energy Council has not yet been decided, but it could include consideration of two draft decisions on measures to be taken in the event of oil supply difficulties; a draft regulation on common rules for the import and export of hydrocarbons; a draft regulation concerning support for Community projects in hydrocarbon exploration and further consideration of a draft directive on the maintenance of minimum stocks of fuel at power stations. It is also likely that Ministers will discuss Commission proposals on energy research and development, as well as a draft resolution on the fixing of a short-term objective for energy-saving.
Agriculture Ministers will give further consideration to the Commission's stocktaking of the CAP. They are also likely to deal with various health and hygiene matters concerned with the marketing of milk and poultry, measures for dealing with exotic animal diseases, and the nonmember countries from which fresh meat and livestock may be imported.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: The House is grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for making that statement about forthcoming Community business. I should like to ask him four questions.
First, in regard to the Foreign Affairs Council, I welcome the prospect of its reaching agreement on the improvement of trade with Israel and with the Arab States, and also possibly on raw materials. Will he seek to obtain a common view from the Community Ministers before his right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary discusses the question of raw materials at the forthcoming conference in Kingston, Jamaica, as was announced in the foreign affairs debate earlier this week? Will he agree that in all these matters of trade, budgets and so on, it is much more likely that useful agreements of benefit to this country as well as to the world will be achieved as a result of our being within the Community rather than of our pulling out?
Secondly, I should like to deal with the question of the Finance Ministers' meeting and their important discussions


on the economic situation and on gold. Will they discuss the latest OECD figures—figures which many of us saw this morning with some concern? May we be told which Minister will attend that meeting? I hope that we can be assured that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will attend as one Minister who is in favour of Britain remaining within the Community, rather than that Britain should be represented at a meeting of Community Finance Ministers by a junior Treasury Minister who is opposed to our being in the Community.
Thirdly, may we be told who is to attend the important Community Minister's meeting on the subject of energy? I hope we shall not be represented at that meeting by a Secretary of State for Energy who is against our being in the Community. Perhaps we may be told how this matter will be resolved?
Lastly, on the question of agriculture, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept our support for the stocktaking exercise which Ministers will be undertaking on the CAP. Why is there no mention in the proposed agenda of the important subject of fish?

Mr. Hattersley: I think the hon. Gentleman will come to learn that the convention on these occasions is to treat them like Business Statements rather than as an opportunity to make rather trite party points. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh.] I therefore propose, following a ruling by Mr. Speaker on previous occasions, to answer those questions which relate to business rather than to policy. The answers are as follows.
My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will certainly try to obtain a common view on the raw material position—as is the object of meetings of the Council of Ministers.
The proposed discussions by Finance Ministers on the subject of gold will be related to an IMF proposal which suggests that the fixed price for gold should be removed.
The matter of Ministers' attendance at meetings is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. If the hon. Gentleman seeks information on that score, he must table Questions to him.
The agricultural stocktaking will proceed and a report, having been prepared

by the Commission, is now in the hands of the Council of Ministers.
I anticipate that as well as discussion of agricultural stocktaking there will be some consideration of common fisheries policy and its relationship to the Law of the Sea Conference. That is not formally on the agenda, but I have no doubt that some discussions will take place.

Mr. Spearing: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it will be my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary who will be discussing the subject of raw materials? If that is the case, does it not show that the EEC is developing a foreign policy related to its economic requirements?
On the subject of agriculture, will my right hon. Friend confirm that whoever goes to the Council of Ministers will put forward strongly the views expressed in this House by the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) and the hon. Member for Devon, West (Mr. Mills) about the difficulties of implementing the EEC proposals on dairy hygiene? They were points made strongly by the Opposition, and they are matters of great validity.

Mr. Hattersley: The entire object of the scrutiny procedure is to make sure that whoever represents the Government at these Council meetings is aware of the opinions of both sides, and an attempt is made to build them, if possible, into the Government's position at the Council of Ministers.
I gladly give my hon. Friend the assurance that points made in agricultural debates will be taken into account by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture.
In regard to meetings at which various subjects are discussed, I should explain that Councils of Ministers preserve the fiction that there is only one Council, although it may be attended on one occasion by a Finance Minister and on another by a Foreign Minister, but they speak for the Community as a whole. It is surely important that all sorts of matters should be discussed at the Foreign Ministers' Council. The fact that the items I have listed today are on the agenda shows no special significance in terms of future policy changes.

Mr. Grimond: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his reassurance that the topic of fish will be on the agenda. May I press him further on this matter. Although we are aware that the Minister of Agriculture has promised to raise certain matters within the EEC, we appreciate that there are extremely important matters concerned with fish prices, conservation and limits which affect not only the internal policy of the EEC but also external countries, such as Norway and countries in Eastern Europe. Will he urge that the British Government's views on these matters should be placed on the agenda at the earliest possible moment?

Mr. Hattersley: I give the right hon. Gentleman that assurance without reservation or hesitation. Substantial difficulties arise from the processes of the common fisheries policy and the United Nations Law of the Sea Conference. The fact that those two matters come together means that there is a problem that must be solved on behalf of British fishermen. We shall do our best to solve it.

Mr. Blaker: Although I appreciate that it is for the Prime Minister to decide which Minister attends what meeting, will the right hon. Gentleman make the point to the Prime Minister that if the energy meeting is attended by the Secretary of State for Energy it will result in a rather extraordinary position? Will the Secretary of State for Energy be putting forward his own personal view or the view of the Government?

Mr. Hattersley: The hon. Gentleman heard my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister some minutes ago say that Ministers who speak from this Dispatch Box put forward the Government's view. I have no doubt that in the sense in which we are now talking "Dispatch Box" is used in other spheres in a metaphorical sense. I assure the hon. Gentleman that members of the Government representing Her Majesty's Government abroad will clearly advance the Government's position and governmental opinion. There can be no two ways about it.

Mr. Molloy: Does my right hon. Friend agree that his statement this morning, for which we are grateful, nevertheless shows an increasing dimension of

political activity in this House and throughout the country and that the various British Ministers who attend the meeings which he has outlined may not be able to achieve many of the things that they feel should happen in regard to the economic health of this nation? Bearing in mind that this matter is not the entire responsibility of my right hon. Friend, will he add his voice to those of us who ask that these issues, when they are included, should be the subject of full discussion, as far as possible, with regard to the business of the House of Commons?

Mr. Hattersley: I agree very strongly with the point made by my hon. Friend. We now have a complicated and difficult to-manage procedure, which at least endeavours to give the House of Commons the opportunity to monitor and to comment upon what Ministers do in Brussels and Luxembourg. We shall continue that process. We shall extend and improve it where we can, but, in principle, my hon. Friend and I are in absolute agreement. The House must be able to exercise its proper rights and to express its opinions, and we must go on doing that.

Mr. Dykes: Is the Minister of State aware that the answers he gave on the points about anti-EEC Ministers attending these meetings were even more casual than those he normally gives on these occasions? Will he give us an assurance that in respect of important policies such as energy, and other matters, the Foreign Secretary or other pro-EEC Ministers will replace anti-EEC Ministers at vital meetings?

Mr. Hattersley: I am sorry if I sounded casual to the hon. Gentleman. He must not expect all Ministers to perform with frenzy on these subjects. Some of us will want to continue to express our opinions as calmly as we can.
I can only reiterate what I said a few minutes ago. Ministers speaking on behalf of the Government at the Dispatch Box, as my right hon. Friend made absolutely clear, will obviously advocate the corporate Government position. Clearly, Ministers going abroad on behalf of the Government will do the same thing. I do not think that there is any problem about that. Nor do I think that there is any reason why the hon. Gentleman should be concerned. I have no


doubt that my colleagues will behave with dignity and honour in representing Government policy.

Mr. Lawrence: Will the right hon. Gentleman make sure at the meeting which I think he said will take place at the end of the month concerning the import of animals that the European countries are aware of the deep concern now felt in the country at the slow implementation of the agreed procedures to mitigate the cruelty involved in the import and export of live animals? Bearing in mind that last week's "Midweek" programme showed that there had been no reduction in the level of cruelty, some hon. Members may feel that they have been misled by the assurances given by the Minister during the debate on the O'Brien Report.

Mr. Hattersley: I cannot comment on what the hon. Gentleman has said. However, I assure him that no Minister of Agriculture can be unaware of the strength of feeling on these matters in the House and in the country. I know that my right hon. Friend shares many of those feelings. If an opportunity arises to make that point clear in Brussels and Luxembourg, I am sure that my right hon. Friend will do so.

Mr. Warren: Whilst welcoming the double commitment made this morning that the Secretary of State for Energy will be following the Government line when he represents this country at European Community discussions, may I also press the Minister of State to assure us that the Secretary of State for Energy will look very carefully in the Energy Council at the need for much improved co-ordination between the work on energy conservation done by this country and the progress made in the other countries of Europe? I feel that we are lagging behind and that we should press further and faster ahead in this matter.

Mr. Hattersley: The House debated exactly these points on 11th February last and on 3rd December 1974. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy made two comments. The first was his willingness to consider any plans for co-operation and co-ordination. The second was his insistence on preserving vital British interests. I am sure that it is the wish of the House that he

operates according to those criteria, and I am sure that he will do that.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I am sorry to return to the original point made by the right hon. Gentleman, but he was slightly and unnecessarily rude about the question which I put to him. [HON. MEMBERS: "Humbug."] He will know very well that the last two business statements on Europe were postponed or not made. He will also know that he is making this important statement on the day that the House rises, in which case many of our colleagues on all sides will have had no opportunity of questioning him. I hope that he will not say that this is a trite party point if the Opposition wish to know who, within a divided Government, will speak for Britain abroad. This is an important point.
The right hon. Gentleman has made a ruling as to the constitutional position of Ministers who disagree publicly with the policy of the Government. When they go abroad they will agree with that policy. To put it mildly, Ministers from other countries who are dealing with Ministers from the United Kingdom will feel somewhat confused. Therefore, I again put this matter to the Minister. Will he not, as Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, bear in mind that the Foreign Office has a prime responsibility to make sure that those who speak to other countries in the name of Britain do so with complete responsibility and authority? Will he, as a Foreign Office Minister, represent strongly to the Prime Minister that hon. Members must know that those who are sent to ministerial meetings abroad will speak with the full-hearted consent of their colleagues in the Cabinet and will not presume to put forward their own reservations about the general policies of the Government, against which they will simultaneously be campaigning in the United Kingdom?

Mr. Hattersley: If the opinions of the Opposition are accurate this morning I have managed to be both casual and aggressively rude at the same time—which some of us would think was a substantial achievement.
The Government gave no oral business statement last month. It is not true to say that we have missed it twice. We missed it one month but made a written forecast of the business. The intention


of making written forecasts of business and oral statements is that the House should be made aware of what is about to be discussed. The House should then have other opportunities in debates, in the Scrutiny Committee, in Questions and in other procedures to enable hon. Members to probe the substance of subjects discussed in Europe. That was the intention of the Foster Report and of the Select Committee which implemented the report.
On a number of occasions Mr. Speaker has said that occasions such as today should be regarded as being parallel to the Thursday Business Statement when the merits of subjects are not discussed—only the business of the House and the business likely to come before the Council of Ministers. In that spirit we all tried, until the arrival of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths), to avoid making points of that degree of contention. He has made the points and his hon. Friends have repeated them.
I repeat what I said to the previous questioner. I have not the slightest doubt that all my colleagues in the Government will represent Great Britain's policy abroad with dignity, honour and clarity. That satisfies me, and it ought to satisfy the hon. Member.

Mr. Rost: While I appreciate the answers given by the Minister of State,

does he not understand that there is a genuine problem here with regard to the Energy Minister's meeting in Europe? It is well known and accepted that Britain has dragged its feet on cooperation, particularly on energy. This is obviously not just Government policy—it is the Minister's policy. How will that be changed, so that we can give a lead and co-operate in Europe?

Mr. Hattersley: I fear that I cannot resist the temptation to remind the hon. Gentleman that in a real sense he has answered the point made by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds in the way in which I tried to answer it.
The energy policy which we have advanced in the Community during the last year is the policy of the Secretary of State for Energy towards the Government. He will continue to do that. That places no consequential difficulties on him. That is his policy, and the Government accept whatever measures of co-ordination are consistent with our national interests. That seems to me to be wholly reasonable.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (REFERENDUM BILL)

Ordered,
That, notwithstanding the practice of the House, notices of Amendments, new Clauses and new Schedules to the Referendum Bill may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a Second Time.—[Mr. Dormand]

Orders of the Day — DISEASES OF ANIMALS BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 66 (Second Reading Committees), That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Question agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill Committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

Orders of the Day — STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): If there is no objection I shall put a single question on Motions 2 to 6 on the Order Paper.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 73A (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments).

Orders of the Day — COMPANIES

That the Companies (Fees) Regulations 1975, a draft of which was laid before this House on 10th March, be approved.—[Mr. Dormand.]

Orders of the Day — CUSTOMS AND EXCISE

That the Anti-Dumping Duty Order 1975 (S.I., 1975, No. 368), a copy of which was laid before this House on 13th March, be approved.—[Mr. Dormand.]

Orders of the Day — SOCIAL SECURITY

That the Social Security (Mariners' Benefits) Regulations 1975, a draft of which was laid before this House on 10th March, be approved.—[Mr. Dormand.]

Orders of the Day — COAL INDUSTRY

That the Redundant Mineworkers and Concessionary Coal (Payments Schemes) (Amendment) Order 1975, a draft of which was laid before this House on 12th March, be approved.—[Mr. Dormand.]

Orders of the Day — RATING AND VALUATION

That the Rating (Water Hereditaments) Order 1975, a copy of which was laid before this House on 12th March, be approved.—[Mr. Dormand.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

Ordered,
That, notwithstanding the Order of the House on 21st November relating to nomination of members of the Select Committee on Science and Technology, Mr. Christopher Tugendhat be discharged from the Select Committee on Science and Technology and Mr. Peter Rost be added to the Committee for the remainder of this Parliament:
That this Order be a Standing Order of the House.—[Mr. Dormand.]

Orders of the Day — WEALTH TAX

Ordered,
That Mr. William Clark be discharged from the Select Committee on a Wealth Tax and that Mr. T. H. H. Skeet be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Dormand.]

PETITION

Finer Report

Mrs. Hayman: I beg leave of the House to present a petition on the subject of one-parent families. It is supported by more than 2,000 signatures collected by the Women's Organisation of the Labour Party in the South-Western Region, and it calls upon this House to implement the main recommendation of the Finer Committee's Report on One-Parent Families to give a special cash allowance, namely, the guaranteed maintenance allowance, to all lone parents and their children.

I beg leave to present the Petition.

To lie upon the Table.

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dormand.]

SOUTHERN AFRICA

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): Before I call the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) to begin this series of Adjournment debates, I should point out that the first debate will end at 1.15 p.m., as indicated on the Order Paper, because Mr. Speaker took into consideration the fact that there was to be a statement this morning and he allowed additional time for that.

12.1 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Wall: A number of right hon. and hon. Members will be aware that during my 21 years in this House I have taken a great interest in Africa and have visited different parts of that continent, on average, once every two years. Last month, at the invitation of the South African Government, I visited South Africa and South-West Africa, stopping off en route in Rhodesia.
I found that great changes were taking place throughout the southern part of the continent. I believe that these changes are important to this country and probably to the world and that they should be placed on the record of this House in some detail.
The changes can be summed up in one word—détente. This policy was inaugurated by Mr. Vorster. It is supported by the African Heads of State, and it has worldwide implications. Its success would mean the peaceful evolution of the southern part of the continent, which is an area of great strategic importance to the world as a whole since it commands the oil routes. Oil is perhaps of primary importance at the moment, but probably for the next generation the production of food will be the major issue, and that part of the world can provide a great deal of the food required for the industrialised nations of the West. Failure of détente could well entail a race war in which the major Powers inevitably would become involved. Such a war would destroy the future of all races in Southern Africa but could possibly involve the world in an even more serious crisis than that in Vietnam and South-East Asia.
I submit, therefore, that the stakes in terms of the success of the policy of détente are very high. The alternatives are either the peaceful evolution of Southern Africa or bloody revolution.
The immediate problems which have to be overcome if détente is to be successful are, first, the constitutional future of Rhodesia and, second, the constitutional future of South-West Africa.
Détente has produced an entirely new situation for Rhodesia. For the first time, the leaders of the African States are using their influence to stop the guerilla fighters instead of, as in the past, encouraging them. Three States have

now realised that independence did not bring Utopia. Their citizens are short of food and are becoming restless. The African nationalists are demanding a rapid transfer of power in Rhodesia in one to three years, a timetable which no Rhodesian Government would concede, though 10 years might perhaps be considered a reasonable compromise.
This problem can be solved only by Rhodesians in Rhodesia. Any interference by this country could wreck any chance of success. I was glad to see that the Foreign Secretary had the good sense, on returning from his African visit, not to give any date for a constitutional conference on Rhodesia. This would only have produced a complete fiasco. In case the right hon. Gentleman thinks that only Rhodesians were critical of his visit, let me give one brief quotation from an item broadcast on Zambia radio:
James Callaghan has been exposed as the typical hypocrite and opportunist who, like a linesman in a crucial football match, runs along the sideline ready to rush to the goal post, whichever side the goal is scored, to emerge, boots and all, carrying the ball and claiming to be the scorer.
That was broadcast on Zambia Radio. In other words, even a country with which the Foreign Secretary and the present Government have close links can be critical of the right hon. Gentleman's visit.
The problem faced by Mr. Smith's Government is very similar to that faced by Her Majesty's Government over Ulster. The use of security forces by both Governments has greatly reduced the level of violence, but it can be eradicated only by a political solution. That applies equally to Ulster and Rhodesia. If the Government concerned negotiate with one guerilla organisation and reach some form of settlement, inevitably the other guerilla organisation will disagree with it.
In Rhodesia, there is as yet little agreement between the four components of the enlarged ANC—Bishop Muzorewa's ANC, Joshua Nkomo's ZAPU, James Chickerema's FROLIZI and Dr. Sithole's ZANU. Clearly ZANU is the most intransigent, partly because it represents the Shona majority and partly because it possesses the larger guerilla army, whose operations were directed by the late Herbert Chitepo from Lusaka. ZANU


is now stalling for time in order to consolidate its hold on the enlarged ANC and to build up its supplies in Rhodesia from base camps in Zambia and Mozambique.
When I was in Rhodesia, I believed that, though the gap between the two sides was large, there was a chance of success provided that Chitepo and Sithole could be controlled and would observe the cease-fire. There was already a split in ZANU over the cease-fire and a mutiny in one of the base camps in which more than 40 were killed. Since then Mr. Chitepo has been blown up by a land mine, presumably planted by one of the hostile factions, and Dr. Sithole has been rearrested and is now facing trial.
However, the key to the future of Rhodesia lies in South Africa. South Africa wants détente to succeed. The question is whether she will put pressure on Rhodesia to settle on the African terms in, say, three years. I found that, compared to two years ago, there had been a surprising change of opinion in northern cities such as Pretoria and Johannesburg. Whereas on my last visit the Afrikaaner was backing Rhodesia 100 per cent. and the English-speaking South African was lukewarm in his support, today the English speaker supports Ian Smith in his determination not to yield to a black government in less than a generation. Whereas the anti-Rhodesian view is supported by the Afrikaans Press in the Transvaal, this is not reflective of public opinion in the Platerland nor, as I discovered, does it represent the view of the Prime Minister, most of his senior Ministers and the heads of the defence forces.
Mr. Vorster has stated repeatedly that these matters must be settled by Rhodesians in Rhodesia. He maintains that his country would not apply any political pressure on Rhodesia, and that the Rhodesians would not accept political pressure from outside. However, there is a general feeling that as there has been a virtual standstill, for reasons that we all know, in African progress in Rhodesia for some years, some advance must now take place. After all, Rhodesia has a multi-racial constitution. It is believed that if this happens, a black Government

could evolve in 10 to 15 years, a moderate Government, in friendly relations with all its neighbours.
I repeat, there is strong feeling in both Rhodesia and South Africa that any interference by Her Majesty's Government at present would probably wreck any chance of a settlement in Rhodesia which must inevitably be followed by a more widely attended constitutional conference.
What if the negotiations fail? The chances of success are, I believe, about fifty-fifty. I believe that. South Africa will not withdraw support from Rhodesia but will attempt to continue her policy of détente by by-passing Rhodesia and trying to carry this policy through to the North. The danger is that if there is a failure, there may be an increase in guerilla warfare in Rhodesia and she may be attacked on two or even three sides. South Africa would then have to make the final and drastic decision either to jettison Rhodesia and so reduce her front line or to fight it out in Rhodesia rather than, a few years later, in the Transvaal.
I have dealt with this matter in some detail because I believe that a great deal depends on the success of the talks in Rhodesia. Mr. Vorster has himself said that the alternative to bringing the parties together round the table was "too ghastly to contemplate".
I turn briefly to the question of South West Africa. Rhodesia has been in the news, but South-West Africa also presents serious problems which will emerge in the next few months or years. The House knows that for some years the South African Government, who administer this territory, have been in dispute with the United Nations about the country's constitutional future. The United Nations consider that that country should be an independent unitary state called Namibia and support the political organisation called SWAPO to achieve this end.
I submit that anyone who has the slightest knowledge of South-West Africa must realise that a unitary state in a country where tribes have been killing each other in living memory and where the population are so split cannot be feasible.
I remind the House of the number of different ethnic groups in the territory.


The largest group is the Ovambo who represent 45·9 per cent. of the population. The second largest group are the whites representing 12·1 per cent. Then come the Damara 8·6 per cent., the Kavango 6·7 per cent., the Hereros 6·6 per cent., the Nama 4·5 per cent., the coloured 3·8 per cent., the Caprivi 3·4 per cent., the Bushmen 3 per cent., the Basters 2·1 per cent., and others making up 3 per cent. There are therefore a large number of tribes which are homogenous in themselves and are geographically separate. That is rather different from the position that we find in the Republic itself.
The House must also appreciate that the Ovambo, the largest tribe, have always kept themselves to themselves and were never conquered by the Germans. The Hereros and Nama, who used to be called the Hottentots, are traditionally hostile and have fought each other continually. The Hereros were decimated by the Germans during the occupation and the Damara have in the past been made the slaves of both the Hereros and the Nama. I am giving this detail to show how difficult it will be to get these different ethnic groups with different histories and characteristics into a unitary state.
The South African Government's policy is that each ethnic group will elect its own council which will nominate two members to take part in constitutional talks. The Ovambo, the largest tribe, may then decide either on independence or to join the rest of their ethnic group across the frontier in Angola which is to become independent this year. If that happened, I believe that it would make the chance of a successful federation or confederation of the remainder in an independent Namibia very much easier, for if the Ovambo remain they are almost bound to dominate the rest, representing as they do just under 50 per cent. of the total population. At the moment the talks are held up while the Hereros and the Damara decide on their councils, but bilateral talks between the Government and each ethnic group are proceeding.
SWAPO has different ideas. It is the only organisation which claims to represent all ethnic groups in the territory, but it is in reality a pretty solidly based Ovambo organisation. The House will recall that it ordered a boycott of the

1975 Ovambo elections and succeeded as only 2·8 per cent. of the people in the territory voted. They tried the same thing again in January this year, but the vote was 75 per cent. in Ovamboland and there was an overall vote of 56 per cent. throughout the country, including Ovambos working in Windhoek and elsewhere. That was a crushing blow to SWAPO.
Unfortunately, the Labour Party has given SWAPO funds and Her Majesty's Government have apparently offered it membership of the Commonwealth. The Labour Government appear to believe that SWAPO represents all ethnic groups, whereas in fact it is some 90 per cent. Ovambo-based. For this reason, the other tribes are becoming increasingly restive because they fear Ovambo domination.

The Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. David Ennals): I think that it may be helpful if I clarify one point now. There has been no suggestion that SWAPO should be offered membership of the Commonwealth. In a conversation between the Secretary of State and representatives of SWAPO a suggestion was made that if the people of Namibia, having eventually gained independence, decided to apply to join the Commonwealth, we would accept them. However, we have recognised that there are other nations in Namibia who should be heard, not simply the views of SWAPO.

Mr. Wall: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention.
The South African Government have stated their determination that the people of South-West Africa—Namibia—will decide their own future and have already outlined how that will be done. The only problem is that it is unlikely that the constitutional conference can be held until the end of this year or early next year. There is a United Nations declaration giving a deadline of May, so there may be further friction with the United Nations over this timetable.
I turn now to my final point, the result of détente. It is interesting to see what has already been achieved. The extraordinary thing about the change in South Africa is that the Nationalist Party, the Afrikaaner Party, has taken the lead. The change in the last two years has been considerable and will now be speeded up.


Already, all five-star hotels are multiracial. Sport is being desegregated. The appalling signs "Whites Only" are coming down, even in Pretoria. The Indian and Coloured Councils are being given greater powers. The Transkei is soon to become independent. The new theatre complex in Cape Town is now open to all races. Even the Nationalists are openly talking of accepting coloureds as whites, which was done in earlier years. The House will recall that they were removed from the voting roll by the then Nationalist Government.
The success of détente in Southern Africa must have important repercussions on race relations in South Africa. A start has been made. It is hoped that western nations, particularly this country which has particular ties with South Africa, will encourage the process by closer contact and relations rather than boycotts and demonstrations which have proved so counter-productive.
The success of the policy of détente and the dismantling of petty apartheid could have important repercussions for the West. The Communist giants, the Soviet Union and China, who have armed and trained the various nationalist guerilla forces, are now doing all they can to sabotage this new policy. Their aim is to detach Southern Africa from the Western orbit.
The oil route to the Middle East and round the Cape is vital to the West until North Sea and Arctic oil becomes available in some 10 years time. This route can be properly protected only with South African co-operation and assistance.
The Soviet maritime power in the Indian Ocean has increased fourfold in the past few years. Russia has established logistics support bases throughout this vast area at a time when the British are withdrawing from an ocean which used to be a British lake.
This raises two important strategic points. First, there is the protection of the 12,000 ships a year which call at South African ports, and the 14,000 ships which pass the Cape without stopping. About 58 per cent. of the ships belong to NATO countries. It is important that the development of the airfield and installations at Diego Garcia are developed. I understand that Her Majesty's Govern-

ment have given the go-ahead, and it is now up to the United States Congress to find the necessary finance. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us how far this has gone.
Secondly, there is the maritime defence of the Cape route. Recently, Buccaneer aircraft were used in joint operations with the Royal Navy. These operations took place last November and they led to a furore in the Press and on the Government benches. Two of the Buccaneers crashed and replacements have been requested from this country. I should like to know what answer has been given.
The Minister will recall that shop stewards at the Hawker-Siddeley factory at Brough in my constituency have been to see the South African Ambassador to tell him that they want to build Buccaneers for his country. It is believed on pretty good authority that an order would be placed in my constituency for 20 new aircraft if our Government would grant export licences. Will they agree to do that? Do they want to see more employment in my constituency? Their attitude amounts to hypocrisy, because it is clear that it is in Britain's and the West's interest that these maritime aircraft should be supplied to protect this vitally important trade route.
There is also the Nimrod, the best antisubmarine aircraft in the world, which South Africa would purchase on a joint user basis. I understand that the Government's defence cuts, which are decimating our Forces, include the reduction of Nimrod aircraft already ordered and there will be several spare airframes. Are the Government prepared to let these go to South Africa? Are they prepared to throw away an order of £500 million at a time when our economy is in the state that it is and unemployment is increasing throughout the country? South Africa will get aircraft from some other country if we do not provide what they want.
One of the other allied Western Powers, France, has built submarines for South Africa. She is now going to build missile-firing fast patrol boats, and later will probably build corvettes. Many South Africans would far rather these ships were built at Yarrows or by other British builders and so maintain the close links that have always existed between the Royal Navy and the South African Navy.
There can be no doubt that change is taking place in South Africa and that as the South African Government's racial policies alter the Government's political objections must fall away and so enable the close co-operation between South Africa and the Western maritime Powers which is essential to check the ever-growing power of the USSR in the Indian Ocean.
Of course, the Communist Powers and their fellow travellers in this country will do their best to deny the success of détente and the watering down of apartheid, or they will represent it purely as a policy of appeasement based on weakness, but the Government know that this is nonsense. They have their representatives there, and they know what is happening, and the strength of South Africa, both economically and militarily.
No one can deny that change has started, and that this should be encouraged. No country, let alone Britain, has yet solved the problems of race relations, and they are at their most difficult in South Africa which is a Western industrialised State where the ratio of blacks to whites is one to 3¼f or 1 to 2¼ if the coloureds are included as whites. Let us at least recognise that something is being achieved and give South Africa our support in making a success of a policy which I believe has untold advantages for the Western world. If the right hon. Gentleman really has Britain's interests at heart he will at least go as far as that when he replies to the debate this afternoon.

ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

1. Export Guarantees Amendment Act 1975
2. District Courts (Scotland) Act 1975

SOUTHERN AFRICA

Question again proposed.

12.44 p.m.

Mr. James Johnson: I looked at the annunciator and saw that my parliamentary colleague and geographical neighbour, the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall), was on his feet and so I came into the Chamber. It is important, if only for a few minutes, to make my position clear.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member was not here when I said that this debate will finish at 1.15, and there are other hon. Members who have signified their wish to share in the debate.

Mr. Johnson: As an old and disciplined Member, as you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I accept that willingly, and therefore I shall shorten my speech to one of less than four minutes.
I shall not say anything about apartheid, because I am sure the Minister will deal with that. The position of the Labour Party on Humberside is well known, and I want to refer only to the post-1964 situation.
At that time, we were committed to selling 30 Buccaneers to South Africa. We stopped that and explained our position as supporters of the Government. We stopped at the 14th plane because of our distaste of the behaviour of South African whites towards the blacks. It is true, of course, as the hon. Member for Haltemprice said, that that did not deter our amoral—not immoral—neighbours in the EEC, such as France, from stepping in and supplying South Africa's needs.
If we wish to maintain work at Hawker-Siddeley at Brough, the job of Members of Parliament and of the Government is to provide other work to take the place of the Bucanneer if and when it is phased out. The HS146—

Mr. Price: It has been cancelled

Mr. Johnson: Not yet. We can still fight for a civilian plane such as the HS146, but we can also fight for a share in the work on the jump-jet or any other plane which the Government decide to build.
It is not enough to say that these men will lose their jobs because we are refusing to supply planes to a régime which we regard as alien to our way of life. Our duty and obligation is to tell our shop stewards that it is not impossible to find other planes to build to take the place of work now being done on planes which may be phased out.
That is our position, and it is an honest and decent one. It is our job to find work for our men in civilian or other spheres, and not to sell planes to South Africa.

12.48 p.m.

Mr. Marcus Fox: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) on introducing this Adjournment debate. It is no secret that recently six of us returned from a visit to the Republic of South Africa. The visit was welcomed by the Conservative Members, but the considerable criticism which it attracted while we were there was directed to the three Labour Members who had the courage to go to see for themselves what the situation was.
There ought to be a reappraisal of our policy towards South Africa and an acceptance that things have changed there. In the best traditions of the House I hasten to add that we went to South Africa at the invitation and expense of the South African Government, but we drew up the programme that we wanted. We met trade unions, we met black, coloured and white people, and we encountered all shades of opinion. I looked at textile areas, and we considered wage rates. There has been a discreditable campaign to attack certain companies in South Africa and the South African nation because of wages rates. I found acceptable the conditions under which I saw the Bantu working in the mining and steel industries.
Is our record on the continent of Africa such that we can say that we know how things should progress? It is reasonable to say that any progress the South African Government make must be within the framework of law and order. On my short visit I recognised that law and order were being maintained and I saw the relaxations mentioned by my hon. Friend in the practice of apartheid and the greater opportunities given in industry to black Africans. It is surprising that much of the hostility to black advancement in

jobs comes from white trade unionists. In many industries employers would be happy to provide them with more responsible jobs, but objections come from surprising sources. Economic pressures will ensure that the advancement we want to see will continue.
We are all looking to the Minister to say that there is change. We should give credit where it is due. For too long we have heard from the Government side of the House criticism of South Africa. Let us look forward to a period when apartheid will be lifted and advancement in industry will be made by black and coloured workers. What we all want to see, namely, increased friendship and trade with every nation, will then come about.
In my constituency there are textile and engineering industries, and I want to see all my constituents in work providing the goods which South Africa wants. I regret that Left-wing members of the Labour Party seek to make party political points on every occasion when South Africa is debated. I can think of two Ministers who are guilty of this—I do not know whether they took part in the debate yesterday but they are of the female sex—one in the hon. Gentleman's Department. The other one shall be nameless. I am sure that the Minister is a man of sincerity, and I look forward to his reply.

12.52 p.m.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) on initiating the debate. I wish to comment on one aspect, which is that British policy towards South Africa should accord with British interests. In a debate of this sort it is necessary to strip away inessentials and get down to British interests. What are British interests? The Republic of South Africa is an extremely valuable trading partner for Britain and we cannot ostracise that country and still expect trade with it to grow. There is a great future in that part of Africa for the raw materials and food which a prosperous world will require in increasing quantities in the future.
I strongly agree with my hon. Friend on the need to co-operate with South Africa in the maintenance of peace on the Cape route. One has only to look


at a schoolboy map to understand its importance. The aircraft, weapons and maritime equipment which we know are required by the South Africans and which, to be fair, successive British Governments have failed to provide, cannot be used for internal purposes. It is hypocrisy to pretend that Buccaneers, frigates, submarines and Nimrod aircraft can be used for internal purposes, whether or not one agrees with the internal purposes.
The Simonstown Agreement is a joint agreement, and the South African Government have kept well their side of it. I say with the deepest possible regret that the way in which successive British Governments have kept their side of the Simonstown Agreement leaves a great deal to be desired.
I pay tribute from my past life to the South African Navy. In recent years I have visited its huge maritime headquarters and seen what an extremely careful eye is kept on what occurs on that vital trade route. If the South African Navy did not do that, no one else could. From the maritime headquarters a watchful eye is kept on unidentified submarines which come in close to the coast, a few hundred yards off shore, for what purpose no one knows. To prevent war, which is our function, we must know what is going on.
To sum up, I believe that our policy towards South Africa should be reasonable, sensible, generous and unbiased. We should remember Lenin's remark that if we control the tip of Africa we control the world.

12.56 p.m.

Mr. Peter Maker: I add my voice to those of my hon. Friends who have congratulated my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) on initiating the debate. As always he spoke with great knowledge of southern Africa, and this has been a valuable debate.
I believe that Mr. Vorster is making a determined effort to promote détente in Africa, which is vitally necessary if bloodshed is to be avoided in the southern part of the continent. As a consequence of Portugal's departure from its overseas African territories, the wind of change is blowing harder than ever before. Nevertheless we should bear in mind the diffi-

culties faced by Mr. Vorster and the South African Government. They have to try to calm a tense situation and at the same time retain the support of the European population, who, naturally in the present situation, have fears and uncertainties. I agree with my hon. Friends who said that there are encouraging signs of change in Southern Africa. No one has referred to the conciliatory speeches made a few weeks ago by President Kaunda and Mr. Vorster, which were significant.
There are encouraging signs of change in South Africa itself. Change is coming about in the Republic. Voices in the Dutch Reformed Church have spoken up in favour of mixed worship. The Synod of the Church has resolved that there are no theological grounds on which to base the immorality laws. Non-whites have been sent as representatives to the United Nations. The Afrikaaner newspapers have urged the need for a swifter change in connection with multiracial sport. Above all, the demands of a modern economy are placing strains upon the system of apartheid.
We are glad that the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary in his recent tour of Southern Africa included a visit to the Republic, as we urged before he went. As my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) said, we have important trading interests in South Africa, and that is one reason why we think that visit was valuable. The value of our exports in 1974 was £526 million but we have to put against that the fact that the value of our exports to other independent countries south of the Sahara in 1974 was £609 million.
No one should underestimate the benefits which the Simonstown Agreement brings to Britain and the free world generally. I endorse what has been said about the value of the agreement by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Winchester and others, some of whom have greater knowledge than I have. The Simonstown Agreement is recognised by the independent Governments of Africa to be a strategic agreement designed to safeguard the sea routes.
The idea that it is incumbent on this country to choose between the Simonstown Agreement and good relations with black African countries is false. I do


not think we are faced with that choice. I am not convinced that there is a strong demand in the black countries of Southern Africa to that effect except to the extent that the idea has been put forward by Left-wing members of the Labour Party. It was never necessary, and it is not necessary, for us to make that choice.
Next, I wish to say a few words about South West Africa, or Namibia. The South African Government have made it clear to the United Nations that they are prepared to negotiate about the future of South West Africa with the people of that country. It is in everybody's interest that a just and peaceful solution should be reached.
I turn lastly to the question of Rhodesia. For a peaceful solution, for which we on this side fervently hope, as I think do hon. Members in all parts of the House, both sides must make very big concessions. If the British Government have a rôle which can be clearly identified in the present situation, it is to encourage both sides to approach the dialogue in a meaningful way. The Government have spent some time in encouraging the black African countries and the nationalists. I am confident that their encouragement has been along the lines which I have suggested. But I know of no sign that they have been encouraging the white population of Rhodesia along similar lines. I hope the Government realise that there is a serious need for them to give encouragement and reassurance to the white population. By doing that, they would make what could be a key contribution to the cause of peace in Southern Africa.

1.2 p.m.

The Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. David Ennals): The hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) always makes a thoughtful contribution when he speaks on Rhodesia. He speaks from long experience. Today he has spoken about the question of détente, and the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker) has spoken about change.
The hon. Member for Haltemprice paid tribute to the rôle which had been fulfilled by the Presidents of the African States in seeking a solution of some of the major problems of South Africa. I, too, pay tribute to the Presidents of

the African States, and add a further tribute to the helpful rôle played in this context by Mr. Vorster, the South African Prime Minister. We would support him in anything he did to promote détente, and certainly anything which he did to promote change for the good in South Africa. However, like my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Johnson), I do not believe that the supplying of Buccaneers or Nimrods is the sort of contribution which is needed for détente or for the process of change.
I am glad that the hon. Member for Haltemprice has gone on record, in the House and elsewhere, as recognising the inevitability of majority rule in Rhodesia and has said that the basic question is of the timing of the transfer of power from white to black. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House agree that there is no other way. It is an unfortunate fact, nevertheless, that the hopes of many of us here and overseas have received a severe setback from the return of the Rev. Sithole to detention on 4th March and the murder of Mr. Hubert Chitepo on 18th March. I was sad that the hon. Gentleman did not even express a word of regret about his murder.
It would not be helpful for me to speculate on the detailed background of these events or to try to assess responsibilities or attribute blame for them, but they show a fundamental malaise in Rhodesian politics and seem only too likely in themselves to constitute further obstacles to the search for a just and peaceful solution. There have been failures in the fulfilment of the Lusaka Agreement, and those failures have been on both sides. I am sure that all hon. Members will agree that the most important thing now is that the negotiations should be resumed at the earliest possible opportuniy. There should be a cessation of hostilities and a release of political detainees.
Fortunately, the signs are that all concerned—the South African Government, Zambia, Tanzania, Botswana and the African National Council—are persevering in their efforts to get matters moving again. I hope that Mr. Smith will respond. I agree that an agreement in Rhodesia can be reached only by concessions, which will need to be made by both sides. But there can be no concession about whether the aim for


Rhodesia must be majority rule with full and equal rights for people regardless of race. We recognise that time is not on our side.
I agree with the hon. Member for Haltemprice that the choice is between peaceful change and bloody war, and the danger is that hostilities will be resumed unless the move for a peaceful settlement and negotiation is resumed. I was sorry that the hon. Gentleman chose to read—I think that he had some difficulties in reading the print—a newspaper article which criticised my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. No doubt one can read the Press and glean criticisms of the Foreign Secretary's visit, but—

Mr. Wall: It was Zambia Radio.

Mr. Ennals: No doubt one can find criticisms. My impression is that my right hon. Friend's visit was warmly welcomed by the leaders of Zambia and that his continuing interest and exchange of information with them are also recognised.
It is not the intention of Her Majesty's Government to intervene in any way which would do other than promote the discussions. We recognise that eventually there will have to be a constitutional settlement. This House will have to determine the matter. The decision will lie here. There is no point in discussing where a conference should be held or who the chairman should be. That is not for us. It is important, however, that the two parties—those who represent the régime and those who represent the African National Council—should discuss not only those issues but some of the substantive issues so that there is a basis for a move forward.
There is no doubt about where Her Majesty's Government stand in the situation. We envisage tremendous changes. Who would have believed a year ago that the events in Mozambique and Angola would have taken place? This makes me feel not only that there are great pressures for change but that South Africa has the resilience to absorb change. We are in for times of great change in Africa.
But Rhodesia is not the only problem. There has been reference to Namibia. This is another touchstone of the South African Government's good intentions.

They have already hinted that there will be changes and we have left them in no doubt that they must get into action and fulfil the expectations which have been aroused.
Reference has been made to the difficulties of achieving a unitary State. One thing which must be made clear is that Namibia's future must be determined by the free choice of its inhabitants. No solution can be imposed on the Namibians which they do not want. That applies to any attempt to split the territory of Namibia in accordance with policies of racial discrimination. The constitutional structure of a future independent Namibia should be left to Namibians to decide. If we say that it is not for South Africa to decide, we must also say that it is not for us to decide.
The next stage is for the administration in Namibia to negotiate with the freely-elected representatives of the inhabitants so that an early start can be made to the democratic process leading up to independence. Reference has been made to the debates in the United Nations. An important helpful resolution was passed by the Security Council which was supported by the British Government. It is important that there should be a response from South Africa in terms of a declaration of intent. I hope that there will be such a response from the South African Government.
The hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Fox), following his visit to South Africa, referred to conditions there and said that he wished that sometimes credit would be given when advances were made. I take this opportunity of expressing our warm welcome for certain changes which have been made in the petty apartheid restrictions. However, these are improvements which do not go to the heart of the matter, which is the whole apparatus of apartheid. Nevertheless, any progress that is made is to be welcomed, as long as it is progress towards recognising the equality of people, whatever their colour.
The hon. Member referred to sporting embargoes. We welcome the fact that there is now a willingness for white and coloured people on occasions to engage in sport together. I believe that is due largely to South Africa's feeling of being isolated, and this results from pressure


on the part of the rest of the world, including the sporting world which was not prepared to be involved in apartheid sport. I say more power to those who express their views to this effect, for apartheid in sport is as loathsome as apartheid in any other form of human behaviour.
The Simonstown Agreement and Britain's supplying of arms to South Africa have been referred to. The hon. Gentleman cannot expect us to change our policy, which we believe to be right, that it does not help to secure an end to apartheid for Her Majesty's Government to continue to supply arms to South Africa. Our position has been stated and restated. I will try to restate it in the remaining time at my disposal. We have announced our intention to enter into negotiations with the South African Government to terminate the Simonstown Agreement.
The hon. and gallant Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) continues with his opposition to the Government's policy in this respect, but I believe that we are right. The agreement is nearly 20 years old and a number of its provisions are no longer relevant to the present-day situation. The time has come to end it and we hope that these discussions will begin shortly. I do not accept that our decision here is likely to worsen our relations with South Africa.
As for ordinary economic relations, we have not said that we should not have businesslike dealings with South Africa as we do with other countries irrespective of race, colour or ideology. This applies to our trade policy in the non-military sphere.

Mr. James Johnson: Will my right hon. Friend make it clear to Tory Members that we are nauseated by their constant reiteration that the Left wingers of the Labour Party forced the Government to adopt their present policy in relation to Simonstown? Will he make it clear that it is the policy of the Labour movement as a whole—of all of us, moderates or not?

Mr. Ennals: This is a policy which has been enunciated by my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. It is supported by the Labour

Party and it is a view which is deeply held in the country.
I was interested in the argument of the hon. and gallant Member to the effect that the only consideration which should determine the policies of the British Government is British interests. Of course we must never forget British interests, but it is part of British interest to show that we have concern for people in other parts of the world in terms of aid, in the battle against racial discrimination, and in their striving for freedom. These issues run deep in the hearts and minds of the British people, not just in the hearts and minds of those whom the hon. Gentleman pleases to call the Leftish elements of the Labour Party. It is in this spirit that we are concerned with the plight of political prisoners in South Africa. This is why we voted in December for United Nations Resolution 3342C calling for the release of people who have been imprisoned for non-criminal political activities. The resolution was approved unanimously, although we stated our disagreement with parts of it. The resolution was an important expression of international opinion.
I believe not only that the Prime Minister of South Africa has shown statesmanlike behaviour in relation to Rhodesia but that he is conscious of pressures from others parts of the world. South Africa cannot remain isolated. World feeling on these issues is beginning to be taken into account not only in South Africa but also in Rhodesia. If we were to remain silent on these issues of principle we should not be contributing to that expression of world opinion which will make a contribution to the final settlement of the issues we have been debating.

NOTTINGHAM CITY HOSPITAL

1.15 p.m.

Mr. William Whitlock: I am glad to have the opportunity of raising in the House a matter which is very important to the hospital service in Nottingham. Over the past 15 years I have repeatedly spotlighted the imbalance in the provision of National Health Service funds as between the old Sheffield Region and the rest of the country. I have pointed out that within the region itself the further south one looks


the more unfairly low is the level of funds made available for the hospital service.
The announcement of the proposed deferment of the building of the ward block scheme at the Nottingham City Hospital is yet another example of the long history of unfairness. Perhaps the House will appreciate why I say this when I give the details of the accommodation which the new development is intended to replace.
Facilities at the Nottingham City Hospital for the treatment of burns and plastic surgery cases in a combined unit are inadequate in the extreme, there being no separate purpose-built units. Only the artistic genius of a Hogarth could adequately portray the clutter of beds and equipment which exists there, and such a portrayal would be harrowing were it not for the fact that the visual impact of the scene is softened for the observer by the evidence of the dedication and humanity of the staff and by the efforts of all concerned to brighten the accommodation so far as possible. That same dedication of the staff has ensured that over the years during which these dreadful conditions have existed there has been no infection. This is truly a miracle.
Drawn from a catchment area of over 1½ million people covering most of Derbyshire, the whole of Nottinghamshire and parts of Lincolnshire, there are in this accommodation burn cases, cases of major injuries to face and limbs involving skin loss and cases of skin cancer and of carcinoma of the mouth and jaws. In these cases, where disfigurement produces in-patients a very natural desire for privacy, there is none. All are treated in one ward—burns cases, injury cases, cases of malignant disease. It is true that there is a separate adjacent children's ward for the treatment of burns and congenital abnormalities, but that too is totally unsatisfactory.
Such is the absence of storage space for this accommodation that a fire exit and a sluice have to be put into use for storing equipment of one kind and another.
It must be remembered that, apart from the urgent cases which fill these beds, patients who suffer from less urgent conditions are seen in the out-patient department and are put on a waiting list

which has reached unmanageable proportions, being in the region of 15,000 to 16,000 people awaiting in-patient surgery. This means that patients with conditions which cannot be classified as priority are not likely to be operated upon in the foreseeable future. This is a truly shocking state of affairs. It means that with the present lack of facilities we are providing no more than an emergency service for burns, injuries and malignant diseases.
The facilities for paediatrics and neonatal surgery at the city hospital are also grossly unsatisfactory, although every effort has been made to improve premises which do not lend themselves to attempts at additional modernisation. The first floor paediatric medical ward is not served by a bed-lift and the paediatric surgical wards which are in the same block are separated from the operating theatres by a long, unheated corridor.
In neo-natal surgery no special facilities have yet been provided for two consultants appointed in the last two years. As a result the operating theatre of the city hospital's maternity unit is used for these cases, the babies being nursed in the maternity special care baby unit. As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will know, neo-natal surgery is a sub-regional speciality, with Sheffield the only other centre in the Trent Region.
Paediatric nurses are in short supply and there is a need to attract more nurses of the right calibre into this side of nursing, where there is a high degree of emotional involvement with the child and the mother. This is yet another reason for the speedy provision of modern facilities to replace the slum accommodation which we have at the city hospital.
Paediatric teaching is also made extremely difficult in present circumstances, and I have seen students crammed into a tiny room, literally sitting at the feet of their tutor because there is no room for chairs.
A decade or so after the Platt Committee's report on the need to provide in hospitals accommodation for mothers so that they may be near their small children, there is in this unit one small cubicle containing one bed, made available on I know not what assessment of priorities among anxious mothers.
In the paedriatrics ward is a small playroom for those children who are


mobile, but it serves also as a classroom for children who require lessons, as a sitting room for the staff and the mothers and as a dining room. Storage facilities here are as lacking as those I have described in the plastic surgery and burns wards, and unlikely and ill-suited spaces are just as inevitably used to store equipment as in those wards.
Included in the new ward block development would also be facilities for chronic renal dialysis, and in this field also the area lags sadly behind. The facilities in Nottingham are minimal for regular haemodialysis of patients suffering from severe kidney diseases. A six-bed acute kidney unit is approaching completion at the city hospital and is being provided out of money collected from the people of Nottinghamshire through the Lord Mayor's appeal fund for the treatment of kidney disease. Its limited rôle will be available for patients requiring dialysis and support following transplant surgery, but although it will be useful as an interim provision it is neither designed nor large enough for the Nottingham Area Health Authority's needs.
It is a staggering thought that Nottinghamshire has no designated dialysis beds and no designated kidney transplant facilities, although renal transplants are carried out in "borrowed" beds. Thus the development of the kidney service and the training of patients for home dialysis will be impeded by postponement of the "H" Block scheme, and it will also be impossible to appoint a much-needed additional consultant in nephrology.
It must surely be clear from all this that the delay in the commencement of the new ward block scheme involves not only continued treatment of patients in appalling conditions but perpetuation of long waiting lists in some specialities, total denial to the population of others, a hampering of clinical teaching and a reduced output of doctors. It is, therefore, absolutely imperative that the scheme shall go forward in 1975–76.
Over the years I have at times called at the Nottingham City Hospital for one purpose and another, yet never until recently has anyone drawn my attention to the conditions which I have described in this part of the hospital complex. One might ask why no one long ago had raised

protests loud and clear about those conditions and why it was that no one realised that the December 1973 Conservative budget which lopped £120 million off the National Health Service capital expenditure would almost certainly involve the city hospital development among all the projected new building schemes all over the country which would be cut by that budget. I have found that locally people employed in the hospital service seem to have gone along for years blissfully hoping and believing that a replacement of the inadequate facilities I have described was to come fairly soon, and it seems to have come as a shock to them that Conservative cuts meant cuts in their field of interest at the very point where the new ward block scheme seemed at last to be materialising.
But if people at the grass roots of the National Health Service in Nottingham did not appreciate that their much-desired project was in jeopardy, obviously the hierarchy at regional health authority level must have known. About three years ago I referred in the House to all the "generals" at the old regional hospital board level and pointed out that while generals were necessary, we must be careful not to have too many of them, because they do not bear the heat and burden of the day at the point where all the action takes place. Unfortunately, the reorganisation of the National Health Service carried out by the Conservative Government has produced more generals who are even more remote from the needs of the localities. Had they not been so remote, the information at the grassroots level in Nottingham about the need for this scheme would have percolated through to them and ensured that the Nottingham City Hospital scheme was given priority.
Incidentally, I would be very interested to know how much of the sum allocated to the Trent Regional Health Authority is to be spent on improving accommodation for the generals, because I have the uneasy feeling that quite a large proportion of this figure will be spent for that purpose.
In a Written Answer to a Question on 20th February, 1975, my hon. Friend the Minister of State said:
We are urgently reviewing the methods of allocating funds to health authorities to make


them more responsive to needs."—[Official Report, 20th February 1975; Vol. 886, c. 511.]
I shall be very interested to know the result of my hon. Friend's very necessary review, because it is certainly the case that there is a need to make the health authorities aware of the true position at local level.
When in mid-January I learned of the deferment of the new ward block scheme at the Nottingham Hospital I wrote to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services and shortly afterwards twice saw my hon. Friend the Minister of State. He informed me that although the Trent Regional Hospital Authority regarded the city hospital redevelopment as very important, it did not give it priority over several other major schemes in the region, including phase II of the Nottingham University Hospital, and that therefore, despite the fact that the region will almost certainly have the largest regional capital allocation in 1975–76, it seemed unlikely that the city hospital scheme would go forward in 1975–76. He undertook, however, to convey my views to the regional health authority. Later he told me that he had asked the authority to consider its priorities once again in the light of representations I made to him.
I understand that the authority has put forward the proposal that the city hospital scheme will go ahead in 1975–76 on condition that in 1976–77 the projected new hospital at Chesterfield will be started. The Chesterfield project was included in the 1975–76 programme, but I understand that there are reasons why it cannot be started until 1976–77. I hope, therefore, that the Under-Secretary will tell me that we can have the city hospital redevelopment in 1975–76.
Even if in the Trent authority we receive in 1975–76 the largest regional capital allocation in the country, we have a long way to go before we receive a just recompense for the unfair low allocation we in the Nottingham area have received over the years since the National Health Service was brought into being. The building of the new ward block scheme at Nottingham will not correct the injustice which Nottingham has endured for years, but it will make us feel happier as we contemplate the back-log of all that is due to us.
On 2nd December 1974 my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services, in listing her priorities for the National Health Service, stressed the need to ensure that we maintain our expanding medical student intake and the need to reduce long waiting lists. Both those priorities are involved in the Nottingham City Hospital ward block scheme. Until it is built the expansion of the number of medical students in the Nottingham University Medical School will have to be held back, because paediatric teaching in the middle year of their clinical course is one of the most important subjects. I have explained how difficult it is for that teaching to proceed. Delay in the scheme will mean the continuance of excessively long waiting lists.
In case my hon. Friend suggests that the fact that the university hospital phase II is proceeding has any relevance to the ward block scheme, let me tell him that it does not. With the exception of some of the medical paediatric facilities, none of the other beds and specialities involved in the city hospital scheme has any content in the university hospital.
Another high priority stressed by my right hon. Friend on the 2nd December was the maintenance of present levels of capital expenditure on geriatric, mental illness and mental handicap schemes—three areas neglected over many years. Yet that priority does not seem to have registered with the Trent Regional Health Authority, because with the announcement that the city hospital scheme had been deferred came similar news of the deferment of the building of a new unit at the Highbury Hospital, Nottingham, which would have provided residential accommodation for 96 mentally handicapped adults and a further 115 day places for severely mentally handicapped adults.
There are many handicapped people who cannot attend training centres because they need more care and attention than the centres can provide. At the same time homes for mentally handicapped adults cannot provide permanent homes for people who need a degree of nursing inconsistent with the philosophy of community homes. Thus the new unit at the Highbury Hospital has been badly needed for years.
That is the sorry picture I have to paint. I hope that the new attitude of


the Trent Regional Health Authority, combined with my right hon. Friend's approach to priorities, will enable my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to give me news today which will be welcome in Nottingham.

1.37 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Alec Jones): I am glad that, following the abortive attempt of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Whitlock) to raise this subject the other night, he has met with success today.
It is right and proper that he should draw the attention of the House to the neglect in health services in the Nottingham area, which has occurred over a long period. It is proper that he should draw our attention to the cuts in public expenditure imposed on the health service by the previous Government which did not help. These situations tragically exist in Nottingham and elsewhere. They are legacies from the past and a reminder of just how much remains to be done before we achieve uniformly high standards of accommodation in the health service.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for paying tribute to the staff in the Nottingham City Hospital who work under such tremendous difficulties. In view of the publicity which the facilities at this hospital have received, it is right and proper that we should place on record our appreciation of the valuable work done by the staff under these trying difficulties.
It is equally true that the area of the Sheffield Regional Hospital Board was an under-Privileged region. It is known that in 1948 the then Sheffield Regional Hospital Board inherited a region seriously deficient in health care facilities. It is also true that inequality of provision existed within the region and that places such as Nottingham and Leicester required considerable capital improvements. Some large capital programmes are in progress in Nottingham. My hon. Friend is aware of the decision to establish a new medical school at Nottingham. Although I appreciate the point he made, this does not do away with the need for dealing with the specific proposal for the Nottingham City Hospital. I will not pursue that point in view of the time left to me.
In her statement to the House on 2nd December the Secretary of State explained the national priorities which were to be observed in selecting the few major building schemes to be started in 1975 –76. She laid down the criteria to which my hon. Friend has referred.
In December last year regional health authorities were given provisional lists of major schemes thought likely to start in the regions in 1975–76. They had been selected by reference to the nationally—defined criteria. Regional health authorities were also notified of the sums of money provisionally allocated to them. They were asked to consider the listed schemes with any others they might have in mind for the coming year and to let my Department know whether they wished to change or to suggest any changes in the national view of priorities. It was made clear that regions could propose any variations within the total sums provisionaly allocated to them provided the new schemes fitted the criteria and provided my Department was satisfied about the financial effects of any variations on 1976 –7 and later years.
In recognition of its deprived status in past years and the presence of two new medical schools, the Trent. Regional Health Authority provisional allocation for 1975–76 is larger than for any other region. Nevertheless, the regional health authority faces a difficult task in determining priorities. In Nottingham alone three major schemes were programmed to start in 1975–76. They were phase 2 of the university hospital, costing £16·75 million, an adult mental handicap unit and day centre at Highbury, costing £1 million and the City Hospital ward block, which my hon. Friend has so passionately described, costing £1·8 million.
The first scheme makes a major contribution to medical undergraduate teaching. The second is high on the list of priorities in terms of client group requirements and the third, the City Hospital ward block, is needed partly to fill gaps and carries a high service priority.
The idea of providing this new ward block was first proposed by the then Sheffield Regional Hospital Board when it was decided in 1971 to abandon a programme that had been in progress for some time to upgrade wards and to move in favour of the development of a new


block. I have acknowledged that where provision exists in Nottingham for some specialist treatment the facilities are not of the quality required either by my hon. Friend or myself. Nor are they what the Department would want.
It is true that the City ward block scheme would help to cove the problem outlined so graphically by my hon. Friend, by his reference, among other things, to the artist Hogarth. I assure my hon. Friend that if the City ward block scheme fails to get into the 1975–76 programme, my Department will ask the health authorities to consider as a matter of the utmost urgency what contingency arrangements are necessary. I am not suggesting these contingency arrangements as an alternative but merely to show that I appreciate that we have to take some action to overcome some of the difficulties to which my hon. Friend referred.
My hon. Friend will be aware that some doubts arose recently about whether we have been fully apprised of the Trent Regional Health Authority's views on priorities for 1975–76. To resolve this we asked the authority to review the position and to let us know what its priorities were within the sum provisionally allocated to it and bearing in mind the selection criteria.
The authority met on 10th March. My hon. Friend will have seen the statement it then issued. It again endorsed a number of schemes provisionally selected in December and agreed by it in January. It listed two other schemes which it would like to start in 1975–76 provided sufficient funds could be made available to accommodate them in 1976 –77. The Nottingham City Hospital scheme was one of these added schemes. There is a complication. The regional health authority proposed the scheme subject to the proviso that it should not prejudice a start on the new hospital at Chesterfield which is being planned for a start in 1976–77 and which it regards as its top priority on grounds of service need.
Unfortunately my right hon. Friend has not yet been able to give the regional health authority a provisional capital allocation for 1976–77 and I am not therefore in a position to say whether this scheme can go ahead. I know that this

will obviously cause disappointment to my hon. Friend who wanted something specific. All I can say is that I hope to be in a position to reach a decision on this matter of the amount of money available, the question of the Chesterfield Hospital and the effect that it would have on my hon. Friend's proposals within the next week or two. As soon as I am in a position to make an announcement I will ensure that my hon. Friend is the first to receive the information.

HARWICH (PORT EXTENSION)

1.45 p.m.

Mr. Julian Ridsdale: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise a problem affecting the port of Harwich which arises from the refusal of the Government to grant planning permission for the Bath Side scheme. This refusal came as a great shock to the people of Harwich because to them it was a natural development following previous port development. It was a natural step of expansion, not only for the port and British Railways but because of the overall importance of the scheme in filling in land for stage 2 of the Dovercourt By-pass which would ease the traffic problem that has affected Harwich and Dovercourt since the opening of the Harwich Navy Yard in 1964.
For the ratepayers it was an economic scheme, developed with private finance. Yet is was a scheme which would have provided valuable rate revenue. I would be wrong not to underline to the Minister the anger of the people of Harwich because of the Government's refusal. Negotiation have been going on for a considerable number of years. A great deal of experience and time went into preparing a special parliamentary Bill. Members of both parties deliberated upon that Bill in Committee under the excellent chairmanship of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Small). I hope that the Under-Secretary will be half as sympathetic as his fellow Glaswegian was to our problems.
We have, alas, a storm brewing up. There is the threat of nationalisation hanging over the ports. That has altered the picture which was presented to the hon. Member for Garscadden when he saw the scheme as being necessary for the inhabitants of Harwich and for the whole country. After a great deal of inquiry,


that all-party committee saw fit to recommend the scheme.
Later British Railways joined with Ear1par, the developing company, in adding its weight to those pressing for the scheme. It wanted the scheme as much as anyone. Indeed, the expansion it needed at Parkeston would hardly be viable without the Bath Side scheme. Years of hard work and planning went into the submission which finally reached the National Ports Council. An entirely viable scheme was presented to the council. While user commitment was lacking at that stage it is now common knowledge that the council gave the land reclamation scheme its full backing as long ago as the late summer of last year.
The Government's negative decision, after long delay, came just before Christmas of last year. As the Minister knows, the publicity announcement and distribution was not all it might have been. It may have been because of Christmas and problems with the post. I shall be grateful if the hon. Gentleman will explain, as he has done to me privately, that the faults were to do with the Government publicity machine and were not the faults of others.
This Government decision meant that the development of valuable port facilities, particularly road communications, in an exanding area of trade was delayed and extra expense incurred at a time when everything was prepared to go ahead. These facilities are backed by excellent road and rail communications. The Minister knows that with these facilities there needs to be an improvement in the lorry parking situation. All of this in my view would have helped, if the scheme had been allowed to go ahead, to create the kind of impetus needed to help an expanding port.
Ear1par was not asking for any Government money. It was planning the development entirely through private investment. While I have no personal interest in that firm I backed the scheme wholeheartedly, not only because of the improvement in port facilities and trade that it was bound to bring but because I wanted to see the completion of the bypass to the Harwich Navy Yard as soon as possible.
Stage 2 of the by pass was to be fitted into the Bath Side plans, and if the Gov-

ernment had given permission in December stage 2 of the bypass could have been well on the way to completion, since the natural filling-in as part of the Bath Side development meant that half the job on the bypass would be done not with taxpayers' or ratepayers' money but with private investment. In fact, it would have meant a considerable saving in ratepayers' money, besides bringing to the longsuffering people of Dovercourt and Harwich much-needed relief from the heavy port traffic which now trundles through the town, as it has done for the past 10 years.
The Government's adverse decision in December, therefore, was a great shock to the people of Harwich. I pay tribute here to the late Mr. Early, an engineer of considerable imagination, who conceived the scheme, and to his company Earlpar Development, under the chairmanship of Lord Lauderdale, who has worked with great effort to get the scheme off the drawing board and make it a practical reality.
The scheme had all-party support in Harwich. It had the support of the local chamber of commerce and of the ports association, as well as the backing of local councils.
Will not the Government reconsider their decision? The Minister has said that one of his reasons for refusal was the lack of user commitment. But has not the stopping of the Maplin scheme and the decision not to go ahead with the Channel Tunnel changed all that? My information is that user commitment could now be found, and in any case British Rail, which wishes to expand in Parkeston, needs the valuable back-up facility which the Bath Side scheme could provide.
Will the Minister take this opportunity to tell us how the Government's policy for nationalisation of the ports will affect developments in ports such as Harwich, especially in the context of the proposed Bath Side Scheme? Does the decision mean the ending of any further development in Harwich and the stopping o: the Bath Side scheme?
What is to be the future outcome of stage 2 of the Dovercourt Bypass; so vital for the people of Harwich? Now that the Maplin project has been stopped, what


is to be the policy regarding investment in the East Coast ports? I have been pressing the Government for a statement on this for some time.
I want the Minister to say a word today about future plans and intentions. I hope he will not hide behind the shadow of inflation and say that vital investment plans such as this cannot now go ahead. Since it had the backing of the Ports Council and a number of other eminent bodies and persons, as well as the backing of Parliament itself, why cannot the Government now agree to the plan going ahead?
In this situation, the timing of the nationalisation Bill is of great significance. Is the Bill to go through in the next Session of Parliament? Under their nationalisation policy, will the Government allow schemes such as Bath Side to go ahead or must we expect the stopping of all future port investment for the time being? If not, what is the Government's intention regarding stage 2 of the Dovercourt Bypass? Delay costs money-it has already cost a considerable amount-and I earnestly hope to hear from the Minister a clear statement to allay the fear about further costly delays.
Is the burden of development now to be shifted from private investment to the taxpayer and ratepayer? Does not the Minister understand the sort of industrial development now beginning to take place around our ports, especially at Harwich? Road communication is becoming more and more expensive. Having industries near ports facilitates cheaper exports, giving the chance to take advantage of expanding trade opportunities in any part of the world. The relative cheapness of sea communication must work to our advantage in the next few decades, and we should be prepared to seize that advantage.
For all those reasons I ask the Government for a clear statement of their future intentions regarding the East Coast ports, and Harwich in particular. As they have refused the Bath Side scheme, a private development, will they find the money necessary for a development at Harwich which has the backing of the Ports Council? Surely there is an easier way, now that user commitment can be obtained, especially after the decision not

to go ahead with the Channel Tunnel and the Maplin project.
The Government should take account of these changes and allow the scheme to go forward as soon as possible. I am sure that that would be in the interests not only of Harwich but of the country as a whole. For my part, I want to see the scheme go ahead, with the land reclamation, so that stage 2 of the bypass can be completed. I have every reason to believe that an entirely new situation has arisen as a result of the cancellation of the Channel Tunnel project. Although user commitment was uncertain, now, with British Rail's expansion plans, matters are entirely changed. Why cannot the Government allow a fine private development scheme to proceed, after all this careful preparation over a number of years? If they will not agree, will they themselves proceed without delay in view of the vital significance of the scheme to Harwich and to the country?

1.56 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Neil Carmichael): I congratulate the hon. Member for Harwich (Mr. Ridsdale) on the continued and informed interest which he has taken in this imaginative scheme for land reclamation and harbour development at Harwich. I know that the project has attracted the interest of other hon. Members, too, and I need hardly say that the Government have studied, and will continue to study, any application for authorisation of major port projects with the utmost care, especially in view of the importance of the ports industry to our country's economic life.
I hope that the House will forgive me if I spend a little time on past history—the hon. Gentleman gave some of it himself—because, in a matter of this kind which has been pursued over a number of years, a brief historical survey can hardly be avoided.
I should make clear at the outset that the refusal in question was one of authorisation under Section 9 of the Harbours Act 1964. There was no question of the refusal of planning consent. Earlpar Development Co., Ltd. obtained the necessary powers to carry out harbour works on land adjoining the area known as Bath Side, Harwich, in its Bath Side Bay Development Act 1972, but—this is


important to note—it still needed to obtain authorisation under the Harbours Act. Section 31 of its own Act makes this explicit.
In August 1971, the company applied for authorisation to construct harbour facilities on reclaimed land at Bath Side, and, after the National Ports Council had been consulted, its application was refused in April 1972. The grounds for the refusal were that there was no evidence of guarantees from prospective users and the company had been unable to show that existing facilities at Harwich would be insufficient to cater for forecast traffic. The company was, however, advised that a further Section 9 application could be considered in due course when
uncertainties about traffic and the likely return on the scheme
were resolved.
In April 1974, the company submitted a modified application. A feature of this scheme was that it was linked with proposals by the British Railways Board to extend Parkeston Quay. After the most careful consideration had been given to the company's submission, it was informed last December that my right hon. Friend had decided that it could not be given the authorisation for which it had asked. The company was told that, although the modified application was for reclamation only, it had to be considered as a part of a major harbour development scheme, and no firm evidence of customer demand for harbour facilities or of a forecast rate of return had been produced. I understand that the company has received legal advice to the effect that the terms of its Act permits it to reclaim Bath Side Bay only with a view to developing harbour facilities. This is why it must as a first step obtain authorisation under the Harbours Act.
Under Section 9 of that Act my right hon. Friend is required to act
with a view to securing the proper control in the national interest of schemes of harbour development.
The company was also told that availability of financial resources would not be regarded as justifying authorisation so long as the uncertainties about customer demand and rate of return persisted.
Finally, it was pointed out that it would be inconsistent with the Government's announced intention to take privately-

owned ports into public ownership as part of their ports reorganisation proposals to authorise the first step in a major harbour development by a harbour authority which is not a public body and which has not yet exercised its statutory works powers.
These, then, are the reasons why the company's second application was refused. Unfortunately, perhaps, from its point of view it could provide in support of its application only letters of general interest and intention which fell some way short of the kind of firm evidence which was necessary to demonstrate a degree of commitment by shipping operators which would produce an adequate income in order to make the whole scheme viable.
I think it will be seen from what I have said that the general arguments which have been advanced in support of the scheme—that it will be good for the prosperity of Harwich generally in terms of industry and employment and that land reclamation is in itself a good thing—are not in themselves sufficient justification in terms of the Harbours Act. Nor is it a conclusive argument in favour of authorisation that the company proposes to finance the scheme itself and without any form of Government financial assistance. The fundamental question is the proper use of national resources, in this case in the context of the requirement for port facilities. If it is still the case that the company hopes to be able shortly to produce the evidence as to demand which the Department has consistently sought we, of course, should be prepared to consider a further application, and that is important. We are tied by the Act to accepting only firm evidence and not a letter saying that the scheme is in general terms a good idea.
The hon. Member has also asked about investment at Harwich and at neighbouring East Coast ports. I must emphasise that it is up to harbour authorities themselves to make proposals for harbour development. They must, however, under statute, seek my right hon. Friend's authorisation for any projects costing more than £1 million. No such application in respect of one of these ports is at present outstanding. I can give a firm assurance that any application that may be made in future will be considered on its merits after consultation


with the National Ports Council in accordance with the requirements of the Act.
Parkeston Quay at Harwich is, of course, one of British Railways principal ports. Over the years the railways have done much to bring in new traffic and thus to build up the port. Drive-on, drive—off vehicle ferries were introduced in 1968 and container traffic has been developed as part of the freightliner system to Zeebrugge since 1968 and to Dunkirk since 1969. British Rail's own traffic forms about three-quarters of the total traffic handled at Parkeston Quay. The board has been considering expansions to meet the growing demand from some of its other port users such as the Danish DFDS shipping line. Now that the Bath Side scheme will not be going ahead as proposed, the board is having to review its plans for dealing with expansion by these users.
The hon. Member has mentioned, in connection with the future of the port, the recently announced proposals by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment to extend the Dock Labour Scheme. Any questions which the hon. Member may have about the proposals themselves should be addressed to my right hon. Friend, but I have no reason to think that they will have any significant impact on the future development of Harwich.
Perhaps I may take this opportunity of apologising for the mix-up which occurred over the release of the Department's Press notice of 20th December last year announcing the refusal of authorisation of the Bath Side Bay scheme. Unfortunately, although copies of the notice were delivered to national newspapers and shipping correspondents and to ports journals in the usual way, copies did not reach the local newspapers in the area because of a chapter of accidents, perhaps, as the hon. Member suggested, not unconnected with the period leading up to Christmas. A copy of the decision letter was, I understand, addressed to the hon. Member and I am sorry if, for reasons which I am unable to explain, this did not reach him. I am glad, however, to note from one Press report that he appears to have been aware of the decision by Christmas Eve.
I can assure the hon. Member that this was a sheer accident. He and I have met so often to discuss the whole question of the Harwich area that I am sure he will accept that he would be the first person to come to mind when we think about Harwich. I hope that he will accept that this was one of those accidents that happens for no accountable reason.
I turn now to the problem of roads and the Dovercourt bypass in particular. Stage 1 of the bypass will be open to traffic in the autumn of 1977 and will carry traffic from Parkeston Quay. Stage 2 of the bypass is a principal road scheme and is the responsibility of the Essex County Council. It is therefore for the county to include the scheme in its transport policy and programme and to fund it in the usual way, but I understand that the council has been reluctant to do this since it considers that the scheme should be financed by central Government, as was stage 1. There is, however, a difference in that stage 2 of the bypass will relieve the A136 which has never been proposed for trunking and therefore the council has been told that this is not possible. The question of the future of stage 2 is independent of the Bath Side scheme and I must reiterate that it is up to the council to decide whether it wants to proceed with it.
On the related question of lorry parks, I recall discussing this topic with the hon. Member at some length some time ago. We followed up the discussion in correspondence during the year. I explained in that correspondence that in the view of the Department it was unlikely that a strategic lorry park sited at Harwich itself would be viable because of the limited number of away-based heavy vehicles parking in the town overnight. The hon. Member will know that this view was supported by the results of a joint Essex and Suffolk County Councils survey of lorry traffic. This showed only too clearly that a lorry park of the kind recommended in the Department's report on lorry parking could not possibly be an economic proposition in Harwich or Parkeston because far too few drivers require overnight accommodation there.
In fact, it now appears to be generally accepted in the industry that the rather


ambitious plans set out in the Report of the 1971 Working Party on Lorry Parking are not likely to be realised at all. We must look for other and perhaps slightly more modest ways of tackling the problem. The responsibility for meeting the demand for purely local lorry parking in Harwich therefore lies with the local authority. The County Council has powers under Section 30 of the Highways Act 1971 to provide lorry areas for specific purposes. Such schemes are now eligible for transport supplementary grant.
I hope, therefore, against the background which I have tried to outline and the other points which I have set out, that the hon. Member will realise that while the door is by no means closed, we should require fairly firm commitments by the users of the scheme before we could look at it again.

Mr. Ridsdale: I have information that there is an earnest user commitment. Will the Minister assure the House that the Government will consider the matter quickly? How long will it take for them to review the situation? This is something we want to get on with as quickly as possible.

Mr. Carmichael: I do not want to give an evasive parliamentary answer, but the point raised by the hon. Gentleman leaves little scope for anything other than that. Obviously the time taken will depend on the strength of the assurances he is able to supply to the Department and the change in the situation since the earlier two applications were made. If he can make fairly strong proposals, what has gone before will always be a help. I should not like to give any commitment about time until we saw the lion. Gentleman's proposals.

GEORGE HENRY INCE

2.11 p.m.

Mr. Ian Mikardo: Some time ago in an Adjournment debate I raised the case of a then constituent of mine who was arrested late one night in my constituency, taken to a police station and there beaten up by six police officers. Not unnaturally he complained about this treatment, and as a result a regular, normal police inquiry was held by policemen into the behaviour of

the police. The investigating officer completely exonerated the police officers concerned.
However, my constituent was bright enough to find a way to get an independent inquiry, by suing the officers concerned. The matter came to court, where on investigation—and, I stress, an independent investigation—it was found that the offences had taken place, and my constituent was awarded a substantial sum in damages against all the officers. It is of interest that even after it had been demonstrated that the officers committed the offence and that they had lied to the investigating officer, no disciplinary or other action was taken against any of them.
I drew the attention of the House to that case at the time as an illustration of the need to bring an independent element, outside the police, into inquiries arising out of complaints about police behaviour. The behaviour of the Essex police towards George Henry Ince strongly reinforces that case. It also sheds some light on the question why some—not all—chief constables and chief officers are still fighting for the right of the police to continue to be exclusively judges in their own cause and in carrying out their investigations under a cloak of secrecy.
When shall we get the final proposals, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been promising us for some time, on the introduction of an independent element into inquiries about police behaviour? The matter has been hanging around for a considerable time.
I shall briefly recapitulate the Ince story. As the House will recall, George Henry Ince was arrested for the murder of Mrs. Patience. The police built up against him a formidable case, one which was absolutely unanswerable and cast iron. The only thing that was wrong with it was that it was wrong, that it identified as a guilty party a man who was not guilty. However, on paper it was a most formidable case. The police relied heavily on evidence of identification which they compiled by methods which can only be described—even if one wants to be charitable—as highly dubious and highly suspect. They used methods which were later resoundingly exposed in a book written by two highly reputable journalists. I should have thought that after the exposure in that book no jury


would ever again convict on evidence of identification alone, because it showed that the procedures of identification, which are being reviewed again, at a leisurely pace, are at best the most inexact of inexact sciences.
George Henry Ince escaped conviction for the murder of Mrs. Patience almost by a miracle. Somebody else was later tried and found guilty of the murder. After that Mr. Ince made a series of specific complaints about the behaviour of the Essex Constabulary. The Director of Public Prosecutions considered them and decided that criminal proceedings against any of the officers concerned with those complaints were not justified. I am not a lawyer and I would not dream of challenging the Director's findings, but when I read the list of offences which have now been admitted by the Chief Constable as having been carried out by his officers I begin to wonder whether the same standards are being applied to police malefactors as to all other malefactors.
I shall quote from a long list only five examples. The first concerns the fated identification. On this subject the Minister of State, Home Office, Lord Harris, wrote to me saying:
Mr. Ince's photograph was in fact first shown to Miss Patience"—
she was one of the principal witnesses—
as one of twelve, on 10th November. Subsequently, however, both she and her father and brother were shown single photographs of Mr. Ince, which was wholly contrary to force instructions. Miss Patience had seen six single photographs of him in the nine days before she came face to face with him at Colchester and identified him. There were also breaches of force instructions when sets of photographs including one of Mr. Ince were shown to Mr. Robert and Mr. David Patience: after they had failed to pick him out from the set as a whole, his photograph was specifically drawn to their attention.
If anybody but the police behaved in that sort of way what would be said? However, the Director says "There ain't anything wrong with that in law."
The second example is that the Chief Constable himself admits that his officers failed to inquire into Ince's alibi. At his second trial he managed to bring forward an unshakable alibi and unshakable evidence to prove that he was nowhere near the scene of the crime when it occurred. That evidence had been given to the

police, and they failed to check it. The Chief Constable says that they failed to check it. One begins to wonder whether they look upon it as their function to get a conviction at all costs of the chap they pick on or to try to find out the truth, to find out what really happened.
Thirdly, there was another identification parade. In respect of this Lord Harris said:
Commander Howells"—
the investigating officer—
has been unable to ascertain with any certainty exactly what happened at every stage of this parade; this in itself is a criticism of the police officers present and of Chief Inspector Gorham, the officer in charge of the parade.
There were a chief inspector and other officers present, but none of them was able to tell the investigating officer what really happened.
Lord Harris continues:
It is clear, however, that on at least two occasions the officer in the case—who, if present at all, should have been there merely as an observer—interfered with the conduct of the parade.
Nothing could be clearer evidence that the officers concerned were determined to get the result they wanted out of the parade.
Fourthly, it is not contested that the police introduced forensic evidence—examples of fibre—without any attempt to check its authenticity.
Finally, photographs of Ince were taken without his knowledge or approval at Bethnal Green police station in my constituency. He did not know that they were being taken secretly. Lord Harris admits:
the handing over of these photographs to the Essex police was a clear breach of Metropolitan police instructions.
It is obvious from all this that the police did not see it as their duty to arrive at the truth. That is what I thought that they were there for, to do their best to help the court to find the truth of the matter. They were out to get a conviction by fair means or foul, whether justified or not.
After all that condemnation by an investigating officer, the greater part of which has been accepted as valid by the Chief Constable, the Chief Constable took disciplinary action against only one of the officers. The officers have got off


both judicial action initiated by the Director of Public Prosecutions and disciplinary action. The Chief Constable puts forward a fantastic reason. He says in effect" I shall not take disciplinary action against them now, if only because it is so long since the offences were committed."
On that I make two points. First, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if you or I had committed a breach of the law two or three years ago I am sure that we would not escape being dealt with for it just because it occurred two or three years ago and not two or three weeks ago.
The second point is even weightier. The timing lies in the hands of the police. They postponed bringing in the investigating officer. I do not complain of that. There may be good reasons. When the investigating officer came in, he took a long time. Again I make no complaint, because he was probably doing his job properly.
Before anything else was done, the matter went to the Director of Public Prosecutions, who also took a long time. I make no complaint. Perhaps he was doing his job properly. But now, because they all took a long time, starting with the police, the police say that they cannot do anything about it because it is a long time since it happened. That is ingenious. All that has to be done about such complaints is to dawdle over the investigation process, and then no action is taken against the offender. They create the delay, and then profit by it.
In the end, the Essex Police got a conviction against Mr. Ince on a different charge concerned with an attack on a bullion van. There has been an inquiry into the handling of that case as well by the police. It is known that at least one serious criminal offence was committed by one or more police officers. That has been investigated, and the report of the investigating officer has gone to the Director of Public Prosecutions, who has been sitting on the papers for three or four months. In the end, the offending police officers will no doubt escape disciplinary action on the grounds that such a long time has elapsed since they committed their offence.
I do not envy my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary her task in replying to my speech, because she is on a very bad

wicket. I regret that she should be put in that position. I have one direct and serious question to put to her about the bullion case. Anthony William Evans was the man driving the van. He was therefore in the best possible position, much better than anyone else, to identify those who attacked it. He was interviewed by the police, shown photographs and taken on two identification parades. At the end of that process he was positive that the accused men were not those whom he had seen attacking the van. It was, so to speak, a positive negative identification. He said positively "These are not the chaps."
Why was that man not called to give evidence? We can be sure that if he had said "I identify these people as the chaps who attacked me" he would have been a star witness, witness No. 1. What sort of evenhanded justice is it that a witness who gives evidence of culpability is called and a witness who gives evidence of non-culpability is not brought into the process? Would it not be right for the whole case to be reviewed in the light of that evidence, which was not available to those who heard the case at the trial?
My hon. Friend's predecessor, the then Minister of State, wrote to me on 27th November 1973 saying:
it may be that the proposed remedy for Mr. Ince's complaints would be civil proceedings against the police in a court of law.
It was kind of the then Minister to offer that advice. Mr. Ince has taken it. But in recent weeks all his mail, including correspondence with his solicitor about the action he is taking on the then Minister's advice, has been withheld from him. When inquiries were made of the governor of the prison, it transpired that the governor had been instructed to send Mr. Ince's mail to the Home Office instead of letting Mr. Ince have it. I believe that after complaints that matter has been put right. But what was the authority for it? What was the reason for it? Why did a prisoner in correspondence with his solicitor, on a Minister's advice, have his correspondence with his solicitor withheld from him? Above all, will my hon. Friend give me an assurance that that will not happen again?
There are many disturbing elements in the case, so disturbing that it must remain open to question, no matter what the


court found, whether Mr. Ince has been rightly convicted. There are certainly matters which suggest that we should introduce as quickly as possible an independent element into inquiries concerning the police.
Mutual confidence between public and police and trust by the public in their police force are essential in a country such as ours. That trust and that confidence are greatly damaged by behaviour of the kind I have described. I hope that my hon. Friend and her Department will move soon to put right these manifest defects.

2.30 p.m.

Mr. David Weitzman: I should like to intervene for a few moments to emphasise the powerful case made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo).
My hon. Friend quoted this glaring example of the danger of any desire to obtain a conviction on the use of identity—namely, identification parades and the use of photographs in the way my hon. Friend outlined. The Home Office should go into the matter very carefully to see whether the methods used in identification processes need to be tightened considerably.
We have recently heard criticisms made by a judge about methods adopted by counsel in cross-examining the police and making allegations against the police founded on their clients' view of what happened. It has been suggested that counsel should not take that course. This is an example of how important it is for counsel in taking up a case on behalf of a client—criminal though he may be—to be empowered to cross—examine even the police about their methods and their evidence. The case of Mr. Ince illustrates how evidence is, I shall not say manufactured, but put forward by the police and is very much open to question. I take this opportunity of replying to that criticism which has been made of counsel because I believe that it is most important that they should carry out their duties fearlessly on behalf of their clients.

2.32 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Dr. Shirley Summerskill): I fully understand why my

hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) welcomes this opportunity to raise the question of police action in respect of Mr. George Ince. I know that it is a case in which my hon. Friend has taken a sustained interest and I appreciate the concern which he feels over the way in which it has been handled.
My noble Friend Lord Harris wrote to my hon. Friend on 29th January and set out in some detail the results of the investigation carried out by Commander Howells of the Metropolitan Police into Mr. Ince's allegations about police conduct leading up to his two trials for the murder of Mrs. Muriel Patience. This investigation had included a detailed review of the inquiries conducted by the Essex police into Mrs. Patience's death, in the light of Mr. Ince's contention that the officers engaged in that inquiry had assumed his guilt from the outset and had acted entirely on that assumption. Commander Howells' investigation had also covered several separate and more specific matters of complaint, to which I shall come later in my speech.
On the main issue raised by Mr. Ince about the conduct of the inquiries into Mrs. Patience's murder, it is clear that there is substance in his criticism of the course pursued by the police. In particular, the Chief Constable of Essex accepts that there was a failure by his officers to inquire thoroughly into the alibi which Mr. Ince had put forward. There are also grounds for criticism in the use made of photographs of Mr. Ince to obtain evidence of identification from members of the Patience family. Photographs are in some circumstances a necessary aid to the identification of criminals, but their use for this purpose needs to be subject to stringent safeguards if the witness is to give an unbiased answer. These safeguards are set out in Home Office guidance to the police and reproduced in the standing instructions of the Essex force, but I regret to say that in Mr. Ince's case these instructions were contravened or disregarded.
The seriousness of the faults in the conduct of these inquiries is underlined by the fact that after Mr. Ince's eventual acquittal another man was subsequently tried and convicted for the murder of which he had been accused. In forming a judgment on this matter, however, the


House should know that the Director of Public Prosecutions, to whom Commander Howells' report was referred, expressed the view that there was nothing to suggest any improper or prejudicial motive underlying the actions of the officers concerned. The course that they had followed in showing photographs to Mrs. Patience's family was brought out fully in the court proceedings.
I should like to turn to the more specific complaints made by my hon. Friend on Mr. Ince's behalf. He spoke of police witnesses committing perjury and complained of photographs—photographs which had been taken previously without his knowledge—having been shown to witnesses.
Before I deal with these specific points, I should like to explain that any delay in the investigation was due to the fact that investigations had to wait until the final murder trial was completed. The complex and detailed investigations took some months to complete. A report was then sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions, and the Chief Constable considered disciplinary proceedings. There were various stages in the investigation.
The complaint about perjury refers to an allegation against Chief Inspector Gorham, the officer in charge of the identification parade held at Colchester on 27th November 1972. Mr. Robert Patience identified another man—not Ince—but subsequently said that he should have picked out a man in a green shirt. The colour of the shirt worn by Ince therefore became an issue at his subsequent trials.
When Ince entered the room where the parade was to be held, he found that he was the only man wearing a white shirt. He changed shirts with his solicitor, who was wearing a beige shirt. At some later stage, Commander Howells accepts, he changed shirts with another man in the parade, into a green shirt. In a statement for the committal proceedings Chief Inspector Gorham said in effect that Ince did not change into a green shirt until some time after Mr. Patience had left the parade. Subsequently in the two trials he identified three changes of shirt and said, in effect, that Ince was wearing a green shirt when Mr. Patience looked at the men paraded.

It is on this difference in evidence that the allegation of perjury is based.
Commander Howells was unable to establish exactly what did happen during the parade. This in itself is a criticism of the officer in charge, Chief Inspector Gorham, and other officers present. He regards as proved that Ince and his solicitor changed shirts before the parade began, that Ince at some stage changed into a green shirt and that there were only these two changes. The Director of Public Prosecutions found, after seeing Commander Howells' report, that there was insufficient evidence on which to base criminal proceedings against any of the officers concerned in the murder inquiries.
I wish now to deal with the point about the taking of photographs without Ince's knowledge. The relevant photographs were taken at Bethnal Green Police Station on 3rd February 1972 without Ince's knowledge or consent. They were taken to provide an up-to-date record of his appearance solely for internal police purposes. They were later supplied to Essex police in connection with the bullion robbery investigation and used by them to show to witnesses in the barn murder case. Three of the photographs were exhibited at the two murder trials of Mr. Ince. The use made of the photographs by Essex police was in clear breach of the understanding on which they were made available. The Commissioner has since taken steps to tighten up the arrangements in such cases. The then Attorney-General confirmed in 1970, in another connection, that the police commit no actionable wrong if police officers photograph a person without the use of force but without his consent while he is in custody.
I come now to the result of the investigation into these various matters of complaint. The investigating officer's report was forwarded by the Chief Constable of Essex to the Director of Public Prosecutions, who decided that there was insufficient evidence to justify criminal proceedings against any of the officers concerned. The Chief Constable then gave consideration to the possibility of disciplinary proceedings.
I remind the House that the possibility of disciplinary proceedings is essentially a matter for the Chief Constable and that


under existing law the Secretary of State has no power to intervene.
Last November the Chief Constable had transferred the officer in charge of the police inquiries into the murder to another post. He subsequently decided that no further action was called for, by way of disciplinary proceedings, against any of the officers concerned. In coming to this decision he took into account the fact that the officers concerned had been under a cloud for some time; the serious consequences, both financially and otherwise, to the officer in charge of his transfer to another post; and the fact that the offences with which the other officers might have been charged were mainly breaches of administrative directions, for which they were admonished. The Chief Constable offered Mr. Ince an apology for the conduct on the part of his officers which gave Mr. Ince and his family cause for complaint, and offered to arrange for the Deputy Chief Constable to visit Mr. Ince to explain his decisions more fully. I understand that Mr. Ince has declined this offer.
As the law stands, the decision whether criminal prosecutions should follow from a complaint against the police rests with the Director of Public Prosecutions. The decision whether there should be disciplinary proceedings rests with the chief officer of the police force concerned. Neither of these is a question in which the Home Office has power to intervene or would be competent to intervene. I know that chief officers discharge this responsibility most conscientiously, and that in this particular case the Chief Constable of Essex gave long and careful thought to what his decision should be. At the same time, however, I am aware of the view held by my hon. Friend, and now, I think, widely accepted in the House, that the final decision in a matter of this sort should not be taken within the police service itself.
As my hon. Friend has pointed out, my right hon. Friend made clear his firm intention of bringing forward legislation which will introduce into the procedure, at the stage when a decision for or against disciplinary action is taken, an independent element with power to influence the outcome. Consultations with the police representative bodies and local authority associations are well advanced and legis-

lation will be introduced at the earliest possible opportunity.
To revert to the case of Mr. Ince, after his acquittal he remained in police custody, and was charged in connection with a bullion robbery at Mountnessing, Essex. He was convicted on 29th November 1973, and was sentenced on the following day to 15 years' imprisonment. I understand that an application which he made to the Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal for leave to appeal to that court has been refused by a single judge. However, the period during which he may renew his application before the full court has not yet expired. This means that the case is therefore sub judice, and it would be quite inappropriate for me to comment at this time. But my noble Friend is aware of a point which my hon. Friend has put to him and will be aware of the points made in a debate today about this case, and, when he is able to do so, he will write to him.

Mr. Mikardo: While thanking my hon. Friend for her careful and courteous reply, may I ask whether she will deal with the point I made about the stopping of Mr. Ince's mail, especially mail from his solicitor, which he will need because of the very points my hon. Friend made at the end of her speech?

Dr. Summerskill: I shall look into that point raised by my hon. Friend and write to him about it.

MENTAL HEALTH

2.45 p.m.

Mr. Cecil Parkinson: First, through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may I thank Mr. Speaker for giving me the privilege of a debate on this important subject on the last-day before the Easter Recess. I have no ambition to deal in an acrimonious way with any aspect of Government policy. I hope to discuss with the House some of the problems of mental hospitals and patients and staff in those hospitals.
In my constituency there are five major mental hospitals, with over 6,500 beds. Many people were slightly alarmed by a sentence in the recent speech of the Secretary of State to the National Society for Mental Health in which she said "Most hospitals have now achieved the


greater part of the minimum standards set in 1969"
If we allow her claim, I do not think that anybody would accuse the Secretary of State of claiming a great deal. The greater part of the minimum standards were set six years ago. The fact that they have been almost achieved is an achievement of a kind, but it is nothing to boast about. The Secretary of State was not boasting about it.
However, many of my constituents do not accept even that limited claim. They are extremely concerned that the minimum standards which we might have expected six years ago, after a policy had been embarked upon by successive Governments, are nowhere near to being maintained and only appear to be maintained by the use of slightly dubious statistical measures.
Let us take the case of a hospital with an average of 60 patients in its wards. We can upgrade half of the wards so that there are 40 patients in them. We can divide by two and claim that the ward occupation level has fallen by an average of 10. That is true. However, half of the hospital lives at an acceptable level at that point while the other half lives at a totally unacceptable level. But if we calculate the average, the figures can be made to look reasonable.
Since I have been the Member of Parliament for Hertfordshire, South I have become concerned at the state of the hospitals in my constituency. I am not making a specifically constituency speech since an area containing hospitals which serve most of North London and a large part of Hertfordshire does not attract purely local interest. However, I suggest that this teaches us lessons which may be of general application. The five hospitals concerned—Napsbury, Shenley, Hill End, Cell Barnes and Harperbury—treat the whole range of handicaps and problems of the subnormal.
Recently I read an interesting paper by Dr. R. D. Scott, who is consultant psychiatrist at the Napsbury Hospital. He is passionately devoted to supporting the Government's policy of running down the big hospitals and building up community care facilities. In his paper Dr. Scott sets out his arguments for the need for a research unit to look into the question of the treatment of the handicapped and how the Ministry's

policy, which has been followed by successive Governments of both parties, is working out.
I should like to quote one or two of the more significant sentences contained in this important paper. On page 1 Dr. Scott says:
there is a singular lack of reliable signposts to the best pathways for the rehabilitation of different types of patients in the community.
In other words, we all accept that we must build up the treatment of patients in the community, but there is an appalling and abysmal lack of knowledge of the sort of facilities which the community needs to do just that.
Dr. Scott goes on to say:
There is no real knowledge of just what sort of facilities are needed—just demands for more facilities.
Another telling sentence reads:
There is a need for research and monitoring to discover what are the best facilities.
Then come what are perhaps the most interesting sentences in the paper:
There are very limited comparable studies comparing the functioning of a community-based hospital service with traditional hospital-based treatments. It is surprising, in view of the revolutionary nature of the Department's policies, that virtually nothing in the way of comparative evaluation has been attempted.
Some years ago this country embarked upon a revolutionary approach to the treatment of the mentally ill. The decision was taken that the large custodial hospitals should be run down and reduced in size and that more and more patients should be treated in the community and that a range of facilities should be built up in the community so that the mentally ill and mentally handicapped should not be siphoned away, put out to grass in Hertfordshire just north of London and forgotten. It was decided that they should be retained in the community and treated there and not be cut off from it.
The idea behind that is obvious. It would prevent such people from being institutionalised. At a time when a person was mentally ill, instead of being taken away from everyone he knew and the surroundings which he knew, he would be kept in contact with his family and his community and treated in a small sector hospital. He would not be extracted from the community but would continue to live in it. Therefore, instead of taking people from the community and then having to


find ways of reintroducing them gradually, the idea was to retain them in the community and to treat them there. It was thought that in that way a major step forward would be taken.
I support that approach wholeheartedly. The theory is unobjectionable. But the way that the policy has developed in practice is quite different.
Rather than talk in general terms, perhaps I may give illustrations from some of the hospitals in my constituency. I take first the Harperbury Hospital at Radlett, which is a subnormality hospital with 1,276 beds. The medical staff support the Department's policies and have done their best to implement them. They started by getting permission and funds from Governments of both parties to upgrade their wards. Instead of having appalling overcrowding, with 60-odd people being crammed into a ward where it was possible only to hold and to look after people and not possible to treat them in any way, a process of upgrading was begun.
Every time that a ward is upgraded, however, instead of having 62 patients, the end result is that only 40 go back into better surroundings. There is less overcrowding, the surroundings are improved, and the nurses can start to treat their patients and see improvements.
It might be assumed that if the Department's policy is that 22 beds shall disappear, 22 more places will be found somewhere else. But this has not happened. All that has happened is that Harperbury Hospital has been forced to improvise, with the result that 50 patients now sleep in a hospital which is due to be closed because there is nowhere else for them to go. By the time that Harper-bury has finished its upgrading process, 197 patients will have nowhere to sleep.
The hospitals are playing their part. They are becoming better places in which to treat the mentally ill. With the fall in the number of hospital beds, however, places are not being developed in the community. All that is happening is that a hospital like Harperbury is slowly strangling itself. It cannot look after its patients. There are not sufficient beds, and it is boarding out many patients in places where it can find beds.
At the end of the day the community services are not developing. The hospital services are improving. But the Government are blithely following a policy which assumes that one facility will run down at the rate that the other develops. That is not happening. The result is that the staff at Harperbury find themselves in a vice. They are improving facilities, they are carrying out the Department's policy, but the community services are not developing.
Dr. Scott has suggested that one reason why community services are not developing is that we do not know what facilities should be developed. No research has been done. When in doubt, people tend to ask for yet another hostel. But Dr. Scott's research has shown that 16 people who went into hostels took a step back. They did not continue to improve but got worse.
We have a policy which sounds quite unobjectionable. However, although the hospitals are being run down, the community facilities are not developing. Yet the Ministry pursues its policy on the assumption that community facilities will develop.
What is happening again in Harper-bury is that in the children's section, two-thirds of the 200 beds set aside for children are occupied by adults. There is no possibility of transferring people when they grow up from the children's section to the adults' section, because the beds in the adults' section are run down and over-subscribed already.
Dr. Ricks, who is one of our leading authorities on the treatment of children, is in the frustrating situation of having two-thirds of his beds occupied by adults for whom there is no place elsewhere, knowing that in the community there are many children who need his facilities and who could be treated if he could accept them. But he is not allowed to have more space and to build more facilities. The hospital is not allowed to build more space to take the adults who at present occupy children's beds.
If one tries to take account of the cost of the support facilities to keep in the community children who should be in the hospital—I refer to the social worker, the welfare worker, the doctor, the nurses and all the other support systems which have to be extended to try to help a


family with a severely disturbed child living in the family—one comes to the conclusion that it is very expensive to deny people like Dr. Ricks the facilities to treat children in hospitals because the Government's policy is not to build up the big hospitals any further.
I feel very strongly about this subject, and there are many other aspects of the lack of success which I could report. I could point to the fact that one of my hospitals will be ordered by magistrates to take a dangerous patient whom it is not in a position to look after. The medical committee has said that the hospital does not have the security facilities to look after the patient. The magistrates will order the doctors to accept the patient. The medical opinion of the doctors will be overruled.
There are in my constituency a substantial number of ex-Broadmoor patients who should be in secure hospitals but for whom there is no place in secure hospitals. The result is that the hospitals and the community have living in them patients whom the doctors know should not be there. There is nowhere else for them to go. This again gives the lie to the idea that the minimum standards required are being attained.
There is a chronic shortage of secure places for criminally disturbed patients, but it is news only when an unfortunate patient gets out of care and does something which damages or injures someone, and then the medical staff come under attack. At present the staff are in an impossible position. They are forced to treat people whom they know they are not geared to treat. I want to return to this subject on many occasions in future.
I have talked about only two of the hospitals concerned. Hill End Hospital is the victim of another aspect of the Government's policy which I suggest is not proving satisfactory. The Department has made a totally arbitrary decision that any hospital with fewer than 1,000 beds cannot be given psychiatric divisional status. That does not sound important, but a hospital without psychiatric divisional status is not allowed to have a divisional nursing officer as its head nurse. The chief nursing officer must be of a lower grade. Therefore, the career prospects for everybody in the hospital are reduced because the limit to their promotion opportunities is set lower.
The Department's policy is to run down the big hospitals and to build up community services. Hill End is a first-class hospital which has done just that. What is its reward? It has been told that, because it does not have 1,000 people in beds—the policy is to get people out into the community—the status of all the people who work there should be reduced. I suggest that the Department should look at that matter very seriously. If the policy is to get people out into the community and the result for nurses and medical staff who work hard to achieve that end is a lowering of status, the Department will not get the enthusiastic co—operation that it needs.
I have heard from the Department that this policy is being reviewed and that new criteria will be established. This must be done quickly. Good people are applying for other jobs because they feel that promotion prospects in this hospital are not as good as they were.
I believe that the Government's policy of running down the big hospitals and building up in the community as a long-term objective is right, but they must be more flexible in their approach. They must not pretend that their policy is working out when we know that it is not. Local authorities are not making plans to deal with the patients who will be discharged from mental and sub-normality hospitals. The hospitals are running down their beds and facilities at a rate which local authorities are not planning to take up by creating facilities within communities. Local authorities are not seized of the scale of facilities which they will be called upon to provide.
The Government must recognise this situation and, in places like Harperbury, make money available to ensure that extra facilities are available in hospitals so that the upgrading process can carry on. It is no use telling Harperbury to go on improving itself without making constructive suggestions about where the 200 bedless patients should go. The Department must be flexible and be prepared to make Crossman-type units available in hospitals like Harperbury as a temporary measure to take the strain.
I suggest that the Government should look again at the most interesting proposal that has been put to me by the


medical committee at Harperbury for turning some of the big hospitals into village communities. There is growing doubt both on this side of the Atlantic and in America, where the policy was pioneered, whether the Government's policy is right.
We are finding at Harperbury that many people who are discharged do not feel at home in the community. Their community is not our community. Some feel at home in the community, and by all means let us get those people back into the community.
Harperbury has plenty of ground available, so why not set out to transform it into a village community? Some patients there want to get married. They are capable of being self-sustaining. However, they do not rank on any local authority housing list. There are acres of grounds at the hospital which belong to the Department for which planning permission could be obtained and on which buildings could be erected. Harperbury could be transformed over a number of years into a community with sheltered accommodation—bungalows, hostels and houses—where people would not be cut off from the facilities they need.
I realise that it is asking a lot of the Minister to comment today, but I invite him to visit Harperbury to discuss the proposition and see just what can be done.
Let us not say that these big hospitals must go but let us consider whether we can transform them. The facilities are not being made available in the community. However, perhaps we can use what is available to produce a new type of community. Let us get rid of the old custodial hospitals but transform some of them into village communities.
There is a chronic shortage of facilities for treating children. There is nowhere for children to go when they become adults. The adult sections of the hospitals are already full. Children in their formative years are being denied the opportunity which might give them a chance in life.
I have a great deal more to say, but I want to leave the Minister time to reply. The staff at these hospitals have had a glimpse of what they can do for their patients, given the proper facilities. They

know that people for whom life appeared hopeless can be helped to re-establish themselves in society. They are in the frustrating situation of knowing what they can do but of being denied the facilities to do it. I hope that the Secretary of State will not make any more speeches about minimum standards having nearly been attained. It simply is not true.

3.8 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Alec Jones): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, South (Mr. Parkinson) for raising this important subject. The Government have promised a White Paper on mental illness. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman and I await that publication with interest.
Basically, there is a sharing of objectives at least between the Department, the hon. Gentleman and the doctors to whom he referred. There is an obvious desire on all sides to do more in this sphere. However, the hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that the limiting factor is not lack of concern or desire but lack of finance. It is easy to say that the Government must make more money available. I have heard those words on many occasions. All the causes for which those words are used are good and worthy. However, we must accept that in our present financial position there are bound to be serious financial restraints on the things that we would otherwise like to do.

Mr. Parkinson: I accept the limitation on resources. But can we try to examine the situation to make sure that the available resources are applied in the best possible way?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): I remind the House that Mr. Speaker set half an hour for this debate.

Mr. Jones: I shall hasten on my way, Mr. Speaker, and try to deal with some of the points made by the hon. Gentleman.
I start with the 1971 White Paper "Better Services for the Mentally Handicapped". I confirm that it is still the Government's policy that there should be a shift in the balance from hospital to community care with an expansion in local authority services and a relative


reduction in the numbers cared for in the hospital service.
The hon. Gentleman is concerned, and rightly so, that there is not a sufficient build-up in community services to permit a reduction in hospital beds, and he and I would wish to move a lot faster in the build-up of community services. Nevertheless it is right to put on record that in the local authority sector up until 1973 both revenue expenditure and the take-up of loan sanction for capital were broadly in line with the expenditure targets in the 1971 White Paper.
Local authorities in general have given high priority to developing services for the mentally handicapped, and in 1973–74 their bids for loan sanction capital were four times greater than the White Paper had provided for. It was the Government, with their overall economic responsibilities, who had to control social services capital expenditure, and initially mental handicap was not shielded from the December 1973 cuts.
However, when last autumn an additional£20 million was made available by the Government for capital expenditure on health and personal social services, we decided that mental handicap, among other things, should be given a special priority, and this year we shall almost be back to the target levels set in the 1971 White Paper, despite the December 1973 cuts.
Local authorities now have and are exercising much greater freedom to decide their own priorities, and the capital projects provisionally approved for next year indicate a continued increase in this field of about 3,500 places in adult training centres and 1,400 places in residential homes, about 250 of them being for children.
Bearing in mind that the bulk of mentally handicapped in residential care will continue to be in hospitals, we cannot neglect that sector, and, as the hon. Gentleman illustrated from his constituency, we have a commitment to improve—but not to extend—the existing large hospitals. This is accompanied by the development of a decentralised hospital service which will be able to link more closely with the local community services.
The hon. Gentleman suggested that we were juggling the figures. I accept the point that the space standards set down

were the minimum, but by December 1973 there were only eight hospitals in the country which did not satisfy those minimum standards, and since then the number has fallen. I use those figures not to try to say that everything in the garden is lovely but to show that there has been an improvement in the overcrowding situation, and there have been similar improvements in the nurse-patient ratio. In 1969 the nurse-patient ratio was 1 to 3.9. In 1974 –75 it had fallen to 1 to 2.5, again indicating an improvement of the kind which the hon. Gentleman is concerned to bring about.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the speech made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I do not want to repeat all the points my right hon. Friend made, but the first measure which she announced on that day—the establishment of a national development group for the mentally handicapped—is well advanced. The chairman of the group, Professor Mittler, has started work and it is hoped to announce the full membership of the group after Easter. It will lead us into advice and research of the kind which the hon. Gentleman requires.
I accept that an objective comparison of hospital and community care is desirable, and I am glad to tell the hon. Gentleman that two research studies are already being undertaken. One is in Wessex and is supported by the Department in conjunction with the Medical Research Council, and Southampton University is evaluating alternative forms of residential care. The other study, initiated by the Department in Sheffield, is a development study in co-ordinated planning of hospital and local authority community care in that defined area.
The hon. Gentleman referred to overcrowding, and I appreciate the point he made about Harperbury. The problem that we come up against is that if we ease overcrowding we automatically reduce the number of beds available, which leads to further problems of the kind mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. I share his wish to improve the overcrowding situation, and I am sure he will acknowledge that a great deal has been achieved in this respect in past years.
I noted with considerable concern the hon. Gentleman's remarks about the


setting up of children's beds. The population served by Harperbury is about one million, and on the basis of planning figures given in "Better Services for the Mentally Handicapped" about 130 children's beds are required. This is rather fewer than the 200 nominally provided at Harperbury, but I understand the difficulties there. At present it has only slightly more than 70 children under the age of 16. There is, therefore, a question of definition as to who or what is a child in these matters.
The North West Thames Regional Health Authority has plans to provide a number of small local hospitals in Harrow and Brent, and in the longer term in Ealing. These will bring needed overall relief and, I hope, enable Harperbury to return all its children's beds to that use.
The hon. Gentleman referred to secure accommodation. The Department is aware that a gap has developed between the high security provision of the special hospitals and provision in the ordinary hospitals where the staffing does not always permit of the degree of supervision and control that is needed in a small minority of cases. Last year my right hon. Friend asked regional health authorities to take urgent action to establish regional security units for such patients.
The hon. Gentleman referred to Hill End Hospital. My hon. Friend the Minister of State wrote to him on 24th January on this matter making the point that it would be wrong to continue basing divisional nursing officer status on the number of beds and saying that a review of the criteria was under way. We have made good progress with the review and, subject to the agreement of the staff associations to our proposals, we hope to make an announcement in the very near future. I trust that this will result in an improvement in the situation at Hill End.
The hon. Gentleman raised a number of other points. I shall write to him in reply because of the time factor today. I am grateful to him for raising the question of Harperbury in particular and for drawing attention to the general problem. It is not a question of complacency. My

right hon. Friend and I will not rest content until all the difficulties, not only at Harperbury but throughout the service, are removed.

MR. P. J. GROOM (TAXICAB LICENCE)

3.17 p.m.

Mrs. Renée Short: I am glad to have this opportunity to raise a matter concerning a constituent of mine. It is a matter which gives me cause for great concern and worry. It is the case of Mr. Patrick Groom, who is a youngish man—he is 34. He now lives in my constituency, but some years ago he lived in Walsall.
Mr. Groom came to see me at my surgery—this is how the case first came to my attention—because he had been refused a private vehicle hire licence by the local authority. He was absolutely frank with me about his prison record. About four years ago he was sentenced to three and a half years for safebreaking, and he served 18 months of that sentence. He has been in trouble since then, having served another 16 months in prison.
After he came out of prison the first time he bought a shop in Walsall in 1973 and tried to make a go of that, but that was when he got into trouble again and his general store had to be sold. He lost money on the deal. When he came out of prison the second time he moved to Wolverhampton, into my constituency, in order, as he said, to make a fresh start and to put everything that had gone before behind him.
He moved out of the area where he had had an unhappy association with both his private life and his business and into Wolverhampton where nobody knew anything about his record. He got a job driving for a taxi firm in Wolverhampton as an employee. He held this job for about six months, and then, with several persons, he set up a new taxi firm in Wolverhampton—which of course covers my constituency and the other Wolverhampton constituency—called Allbro Taxis. For a year he worked with the taxi firm. The partners set up the business from scratch and it became a flourishing private vehicle hire firm doing about 2,000 taxi jobs a week.
Then my constituent was required under the byelaws to apply to the local authority for a private vehicle hire licence. On 9th January his application was heard by the appropriate committee of the local authority, but it was refused. My constituent was not told why his application had been refused. He sought the advice of a solicitor, who advised him to appeal. To make sure that the appeal was properly presented, the solicitor advised him to engage counsel, which my constituent did.
On 27th February my constituent's appeal was heard at Dudley Crown Court, and he was represented by a barrister. The appeal was turned down. My constituent accrued counsel's fees of £162 and costs were awarded against him. When I spoke to him early this week he told me that he had not heard how much the costs would be, but clearly a considerable amount of money will be involved.
My constituent is not now able to work with his firm, and he is worried about the barrister's fees which he has to meet and the costs which will be placed upon him in due course. He is living on about£18 a week unemployment pay. He is a young man with a wife and a little girl of seven and his wife is expecting another baby in September.
At Dudley Crown Court Judge Chetwynd-Talbot said that he regretted having to give this decision and went on to say,
Any course that makes it difficult for a man with a criminal past to earn his living is regrettable. We have come to the conclusion that the committee used proper discretion.
Mr. Groom's counsel made a strong plea on his behalf. He pointed out that because of the decision of the local authority committee, Mr. Groom had lost his livelihood and that he had had to withdraw from the taxi firm which he and his colleagues had set up and was living on £18 a week unemployment pay.
My constituent finds it difficult to understand—and so do I—where the justice of this decision lies. I am a simple soul, as my hon. Friend the Under—Secretary of State knows, and I assume that once a man has been tried by his peers and has served a prison sentence for an offence that he has committed, the slate is wiped clean and he will not be compelled to

continue to pay the price for sins he committed in the past. My constituent has shown that he is anxious to go straight in the job he wants to do and is equipped to do. No complaints have been made about any of the taxi-driving jobs he did and his partners who were working in the firm with him were satisfied with his work. They are incensed that my constituent should be prevented from carrying on his job. No complaints about him were made by anyone.
At the local authority committee hearing on 9th January an application by a man in a similar position, who had a suspended prison sentence for assault two years ago, was turned down. But at the Dudley Crown Court Judge Chetwynd-Talbot decided that the application should have been granted, and the appeal was allowed. That driver had been employed by Mr. Groom's firm and had been sacked because for various reasons he was not suitable.
It is difficult to understand why the judgment was given against my constituent. I assume that the judge felt that my constituent was not a worthy person to be allowed to do this sort of work. I am well aware that what counts is the opinion of the judge. In other parts of the country before other courts and other judges different decisions have been given. That accentuates the unfairness to my constituent.
I am concerned about the reasons why the licence was not granted to my constituent. I understand that the ground which the judge may have taken into consideration is his past record. But my constituent has paid the, price for the peccadillos he committed in the past by serving his prison term. I understand that it is felt that a man with a prison record who drives taxis may put his clients at risk. He may be in a position to get information about the movements of householders. If he takes people to a station or an airport he knows that they will be away from home for a certain period and he may be tempted to burgle their premises.
The anomaly is that my constituent, who has an ordinary driving licence, is not prohibited from driving. As he has a licence which covers ordinary commercial vehicles, I assume that he would be able to drive a milk float or a bread


delivery van, either of which would entail calling at people's houses every day of his working life. It is, therefore, a rather curious consideration for the Crown court to take into account when considering my constituent's appeal.
I should like to hear from my hon. Friend what steps she thinks can be taken by the Department to see that justice is given to my constituent. Justice has not been given. He has been made to pay over again his debt for offences he committed in the past. Is that situation to continue throughout his working life? Is he not to be allowed to decide what kind of job he wants to do without having his past brought against him?
Another unpleasant aspect is the publicity that has surrounded the case. I said earlier that my constituent moved from Walsall to Wolverhampton after serving a prison sentence. He has bought a house in Wolverhampton. Financially he is in a difficult position because he has to keep up the mortgage repayments. Until he appeared before Dudley Crown Court none of his neighbours either in the street or in the area knew anything about his past. When the appeal was turned down all the facts were reported in the local newspaper.
It is not surprising that my constituent feels bitter. His treatment seems to be contrary to all the tenets of justice. We are given to understand that once a person has made a decision to go straight he is given every possible help from society. That is not so. Is there no way by which the slate can be wiped clean? I know that the new legislation does not bite on cases of this sort, but should not the Department have another look at the provisions in the legislation?
Is it not possible for my hon. Friend to give advice other than the obvious advice to Mr. Groom to take his appeal still further, which he cannot afford to do, in the hope that he will receive the licence for which he has applied so that he can carry on the job which he has done for the past 12 months without any complaint from his partners or from any of the clients he has taken on the many journeys he has made? I should be glad to hear from my hon. Friend how she feels my constituent might be helped.

3.31 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Dr. Shirley Summer-skill): With the leave of the House, I shall speak a second time.
The facts of the case are broadly as stated by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short), and I sympathise with the difficulties which her constituent is facing.
On 8th November 1974 Mr. Groom submitted to the Wolverhampton District Council an application for a licence to drive a private hire vehicle. The local authority referred the application to the local police for their observations whether they considered the applicant a fit person to hold such a licence. On his application form Mr. Groom said that he had a conviction for using a motor vehicle with a bald tyre. He made no reference to any other convictions. I understand that the police checked their records and found that Mr. Groom in fact had a considerable criminal record, including a suspended sentence of 18 months imprisonment imposed in December 1973 for burglary and damaging property.
The police informed the local authority that, in their view, Mr. Groom was not a suitable person to hold a licence. At a subsequent meeting of the Public Works and Highways Committee of the local authority on 9th January the police repeated this advice. They said that Mr. Groom had a number of convictions for motoring and criminal offences. They did not say what these were, but they did say that Mr. Groom was still subject to a suspended prison sentence. They also said that the decision in respect of the licence was a matter for the committee and pointed out that Mr. Groom's livelihood was at stake. Nevertheless, the committee decided not to grant the licence.
Mr. Groom subsequently appealed, but his appeal to the Dudley Crown Court, which was heard on 27th January this year, was dismissed. Both the Wolverhampton Council and Mr. Groom were represented by counsel. The chairman of the committee which had refused the application gave evidence. He argued that the council had a responsibility to protect the public and that, in its view, the duty to protect the public must have


priority. The police record of convictions was produced at the hearing. I understand that in discussing the appeal the judge said that he had been mindful of making a decision which could interfere with Mr. Groom's chances of obtaining employment, but he agreed with the chairman's statement that the duty of protecting the public must come first.
I must say frankly that I am concerned about some aspects of this case. The decision in respect of the licence was a matter for the local authority and for the Crown court on appeal—and I naturally make no comment on their decision. It was for them to decide in the light of all the information whether Mr. Groom was a fit person to hold a licence and whether the application should be granted. But I am somewhat concerned that the police should have been involved in consideration of the application to the extent that they were.
The supply of police information is governed by the general principles set out on 14th June 1973 by the right hon. Member for Carshalton (Mr. Carr), who was then Home Secretary. In reply to a Question from my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser), he referred to a review of the disclosure of police information which had been carried out by a working party of officials and chief officers of police. He said then that the supply of police information would continue to be governed by the general principle that no information is given to anyone, however responsible, unless there are weighty considerations of public interest which justify departure from that general rule. He went on to say that the circumstances in which the police may be asked to give information in connection with applications for licences had been reviewed. He said that where the police were authorised by statute to provide evidence about the suitability of applicants for certain licences they should discharge their duty to assist the court or other statutory body. A copy of the Home Office circular to the police which was subsequently issued in August 1973—Home Office Circular No. 140/1973—is in the Library of the House.
The Home Office view about the use of police information, and in particular about the use of police information in respect of applicants for licences, continues to be governed by those general

principles. In respect of applicants for licences as drivers of taxis or private hire vehicles, our view is that a departure from the general rule about the confidentiality of police records is not normally justified.
In reaching this conclusion my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is guided by the consideration that the criminal opportunities for a taxi driver are not significantly different from those in many other trades which come into contact with the public and are in a position to abuse that trust. It is in accordance with this view that chief officers generally do not provide information in respect of prospective taxi drivers. Where they did so in the past, since the issue of the circular, the practice has generally now ceased.
I know that the implementation of this advice has itself given rise to some protest on the part of the local authority associations concerned. They consider that a person who hires a cruising cab places himself or herself very much at the mercy of the driver, in whom he needs to have an implicit trust. But I think that the general principle in respect of police information is a good one, and that generally it ought not to be breached in respect of prospective taxi drivers.
However, the decision in each individual case must eventually rest with the chief constable of the area concerned. It is for him to decide to what extent he should follow the general advice issued by the Home Office. Where the advice is followed, there may always be occasions when in the circumstances of the particular case the chief constable considers that he should make an exception and disclose relevant information to a licensing authority, although he is not required by statute to do so.
I have consulted the Chief Constable of the West Midlands about the action of the police in this case and about his general policy. He agrees that as a matter of practice it is not appropriate for the police to disclose information in their possession in respect of applicants for licences as taxi drivers, but I very much regret that in this case the Wolverhampton police went too far in providing information about Mr. Groom, though I recognise that Mr. Groom had a list of previous motoring and criminal offences which he had not revealed and


that he was still subject to a suspended prison sentence.
I hope that the particular circumstances of the case will not occur again. I appreciate that this will not help my hon. Friend's constituent, but, as I have said, the appeal decision in the case was a matter for the Crown court and there is no action that the Home Secretary can take.
Because, as I have said, I am not entirely happy about the circumstances of the case, I am sorry that I cannot be more helpful to my hon. Friend.

HEREFORD COLLEGE OF EDUCATION

3.39 p.m.

Mr. Colin Shepherd: I am grateful to the Minister for coming here today to reply to this debate. It concerns a topic which is small in itself but is part of a much larger debate which I am sure will be entered into in the country at large.
The subject I wish to raise is the future of the Hereford College of Education, a matter of great concern not only, it seems, to nearly every one of my constituents but also to the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) and other hon. Members who have added their support to Early Day Motion No. 336 in my name. That motion states:
That this House calls upon the Secretary of State for Education and Science to recognise the contribution of Hereford College of Education not only to the educational, cultural and social life of the city of Hereford but also to the standards of teaching in the smaller schools of rural areas for which the College provides valuable in-service training; deplores the threat of closure which if implemented will leave the large rural area west of the Malvern Hills, comprising Shropshire, Herefordshire and Mid-Wales, bereft of a centre of higher education; and calls upon the Secretary of State to secure the future of the College.
In February when I asked the Secretary of State in a Written Question whether he had considered the proposals of the County Council of Hereford and Worcester concerning the future of the Hereford College of Education, he replied that he would not feel able to reach a decision until the review of teacher supply policy had been completed. As

the Minister is aware, that review is now complete, and the proposals of the county education authority under the Department of Education and Science Circular 7/73 with regard to the colleges of education at Shenstone and Worcester have been approved. This has given rise to acute anxiety, particularly in the area west of the Malvern Hills and generally throughout the entire county as to the future of Hereford College of Education.
I ask the Minister that, when considering the future of Hereford College of Education, he will take into account not only the singular factor of the number of teacher training places required on a statistical basis, but also the plural factors of geography, cultural contribution, economics and, above all, the people whom his decision will affect.
From the geographical standpoint, does he appreciate that the Malvern Hills, which bisect the County of Hereford and Worcester in a north-south direction, form a natural barrier which has kept separate the areas to the west and the east since the days of the ancient Britons? Today's communicative ability and administrative facility do not alter the fact of life of this, as any resident east or west will readily affirm. The removal of the centre of higher education in Hereford will leave a cultural and intellectual desert stretching to Wrexham in the north, a distance of 80 miles, to Caerleon in the south, a distance of 40 miles, and Aberystwith to the west, 80 miles away. I am sure that the Minister will agree this is a very large area to be without a centre of higher education.
In the DES Circular 7/73, provision is specifically requested to meet the needs of certain geographical areas. Paragraph 12 states:
… there should be a relatively greater increase in higher education facilities in regions which are at present less well provided
and
… it should be an objective of regional planning to expand provision in areas where it is at present minimal, and reduce the rate of growth in areas which are generously provided.
Whereas I appreciate that the real reason for today's debate is that the Secretary of State has to find ways and means of reducing the number of teacher training places in colleges of education, I ask the Minister for his agreement that the


sentiments expressed in these quotations from the circular nevertheless still hold good for Hereford and its college of education, with the exception that it should now read,
There should be a retention of higher education facilities in regions which are less well provided
and
It should be an objective of regional planning to retain provision in areas where it is at present minimal and if necessary to reduce the level in areas which are generously provided.
Hereford is an area which, through no fault of its own, cannot yet offer full career prospects to all its youth, and many leave the area to make their way in other parts of the country. The replacement of this talent through the function of a college of education which brings in the young from other parts of the country is most desirable. Does the Minister accept that there is a valuable interchange taking place when young people from one area come to another, wanting to learn and willing to contribute?
From the area to the west of the Malvern Hills covering Herefordshire, Shropshire and South Wales come 207 students out of a total of 670, just less than one-third of the total. The remainder come from Scotland, Northern Ireland, East Anglia, Kent, Cornwall and other areas—a truly magnificent melting pot of background and experience and a nice balance between home and away. It is worth noting that of the intake for 1974, 200 out of 232 students had Hereford College of Education as their first choice.
From the cultural standpoint I am sure the Minister will agree that Hereford College of Education is a highly successful institution. Founded in 1902, it is the oldest local education authority teacher training college in the country. It has more than 70 years of proud, continuous tradition behind it. Its period of vigorous growth from 1962 to the present has had a dramatic impact on the standards of primary education in Herefordshire, a county which abounds in small rural primary schools, as the contribution of student teachers has made itself felt.
Is the Minister aware of the extent to which the college provides in-service training for teachers from the schools of Hereford and the surrounding areas. The location of the college in Hereford, the

centre of the area's transportation network, makes travel on a daily basis possible, something that would be substantially more difficult, expensive or even impossible for some teachers if they had to travel to Worcester or Caerleon by public transport.
The campus has evolved along with the character of the institution itself and the contribution of the college to the city. Hence, the college of education is the apex of the pyramid of culture in the city, the base being made up from the schools and further education facilities provided by the technical college and college of art. Over the years the bonds between town and gown have developed strongly. The spirit of community service has been fostered and is greatly appreciated in the city. The combination of college, city and county in a wide variety of extramural activities has made the college an integral part of the life of the area. Organisations such as the Workers' Educational Association, the National Council of Women, the Hereford Civic Trust, the Hereford Community Council and the Hereford String Orchestra are but a few who work with, through or depend upon the college of education.
The academic standards of the college will speak for themselves when the Secretary of State examines them. The college offers both a three-year certificate and a four-year Bachelor of Education course, the standards of which are maintained by validation of the University of Birmingham. Next year it will progress to a new modular degree course for a three-year Bachelor of Education course and a four-year Honours degree course of the University of Birmingham. Not only the students are learners. Among the lecture and tutorial staff there is tremendous enthusiasm for further qualifications. The college is fortunate in having exceptionally well-qualified staff. So far no fewer than 75 per cent. of the staff have gone on to obtain higher degrees and diplomas, an achievement made possible only by their ability to work as a team. Their horizons are truly international and this is again reflected in their contribution to the community of Hereford.
In a Written Answer on 20th March 1975 the Secretary of State said that,
… some 30 colleges will have to give up initial teacher training, though as many as


possible will be used for other educational purposes. Within this total special attention will have to be given to the balance of training and particularly to the need for specialist teachers."—[Official Report, 20th March 1975; Vol. 888, c. 472.]
It is difficult to see how the campus of Hereford College of Education, with its superb hostel accommodation for 250 residential students, can properly be utilised for any other purpose but an institute of higher education.
With regard to the balance of training and the need for specialist teachers, I quote just one short letter from the many I have received. It is from the headmaster of a primary school in the county of Hereford. He says,
As head of a small country school I am writing to voice my concern about the possible closure of the college of education at Hereford. The rural school has problems of isolation which may well increase as the cost of travelling inflates. It will become increasingly difficult for the country head teacher and his staff to keep up to date in a rapidly changing educational world. In a large school there is a constant change of staff, with heads of department and deputy heads bringing new ideas and providing that innovating factor which is so vital to a progressive system.
The college of education, with its tutors and students, helps provide this factor for the rural school. Students bring in a fresh vitality and verve. Tutors bring both practical and theoretical experience. Frequently they act in an advisory capacity to both heads and staff.
I am firmly convinced that if our college closes the education of country children will suffer in real terms. The majority of schools within the Hereford area are rural (just over 22 are within the city limits and over 90 outside the city). These facts alone clearly state the case for retention of our college.
Hereford needs a college of education. In the interests of the children I teach I trust, Sir, that our excellent college education will remain open.
The Minister will see that there are three reasons for securing the future of the Hereford College of Education. There is, first, the need to train teachers for rural areas. This is best done in rural areas. There is, second, the need for a professional centre in education to redress the age balance in a community which has a natural tendency for exodus among its ambitious youth. Third, there is a need for a cultural foundation for the city on which to base its education and intellectual activity.
If he has any doubts about the desirability and necessity of retaining the

Hereford College of Education, I ask the Minister to undertake that before he makes his decision he will visit Hereford to see how the college fits into the needs of the area it serves and fits into the pattern in the county as a whole. I ask him to deal favourably with the proposals of the county of Hereford and Worcester Education Committee and to secure the future of the Hereford College of Education.

3.53 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd) for drawing the attention of the House to the problems connected with the Hereford College of Education and for the clarity with which he has put forward his argument. I understand his deep concern. I know of the strong feeling there is in the area. I have received representations. The letter in The Times the other day was a reminder of how strongly people feel about this matter.
I would not disagree with any of the statements made by the hon. Member about the importance of higher education institutions, particularly colleges of education. As you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I owe a great deal to colleges of education. I was trained in one, and I am grateful for that. I know something about their importance and the contribution they can make.
I should make it clear at the outset that no decision has been taken to the effect that the college should close. Nor has my right hon. Friend put any such proposal to the Hereford and Worcester authority. The position is that the authority submitted in November last year, in response to Circular 7/73, formal plans relating to the whole of its area. It was told at the beginning of February this year that my right hon. Friend did not feel able to take a decision about Hereford until the Government had completed their review of teacher supply and teacher training policy which was then under way. The House will know—the hon. Member referred to it—of my right hon. Friend's statement on 20th March in response to a Question from my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, East (Mr. Clemitson) that this review has now been completed.
As the next step in considering the future of Hereford College, my noble Friend has agreed to discuss the issues involved with representatives of both the college and the authority on Tuesday 8th April. I understand that the hon. Member and his hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) will attend that meeting. It would be quite wrong if I were to say anything today which might prejudice the outcome of that meeting. My noble Friend, who has special responsibilities in this sector, will, of course, approach the meeting with an open mind, and I have no doubt that he will read with care the hon. Gentleman's submission to the House today.
I wish now to deal with some aspects of the social and economic importance of Hereford college to the surrounding area. The hon. Gentleman made his view on that matter very clear, and I realise how important it is in the view of the local community. I do not dispute that in any way, and I know that it is a matter to which the Hereford and Worcester authority attaches great weight. No doubt, its representatives will wish to emphasise that in discussion with my noble Friend.
I assure my hon. Friend that my right hon. Friend is very conscious that in any circumstances a decision that a college of education should give up initial teacher training is a serious step and will inevitably cause considerable distress to those directly concerned, not least to the members of staff. Furthermore, he recognises that in predominantly rural communities, in particular, the indirect consequences of such a decision can be much more widely felt, because of a college's influence on the broader economic, social and cultural life of the area. It is partly for this reason that the Government attach so much importance to finding, wherever possible, alternative educational uses for the premises of colleges of education no longer required for teacher training purposes.
My right hon. Friend will, therefore, take careful account of the points which the hon. Member has made today regarding Hereford college's special contribution to the life of the western part of Hereford and Worcester. The hon. Member will understand, however, that we have to balance these arguments alongside the

educational considerations which form the background to general Government policy for the future development of higher and further education as a whole, including teacher training. I am glad, therefore, of the opportunity afforded by this debate to set out some of the main relevant aspects of that overall policy.
Let me say a word now about Circular 7/73 and the policy inferences there. The key to the Government's approach to the reorganisation of colleges of education is the need to improve the quality of teacher training. One major step forward will be the gradual introduction of new B.Ed degree courses in place of the present certificate courses. The new courses will have a normal entry requirement of two A levels, compared with the minimum of five 0 levels required for certificate courses. It is important to realise that these degree level courses will impose greater demands not only on the students but also on the institutions concerned, and we shall wish to ensure that the reorganisation exercise produces an institutional structure able to meet those demands as effectively as possible.
The Government believe also that the quality of teacher training will benefit by the establishment of much closer links between it and other forms of higher and further education. We are, therefore, seeking to move away as far as possible from a situation in which teacher training has been concentrated almost exclusively in monotechnic institutions. This means encouraging colleges of education to diversify; that is, to introduce other kinds of higher and further education courses alongside their teacher training provision. Some are large enough and strong enough and are appropriately placed to do this as free-standing institutions. Other can best play their part in diversification by joining forces with polytechnics or other further education establishments.
The process of diversification will have the added advantage of introducing a new element of flexibility into the teacher training system, which should make it much easier in future to meet the fluctuations in teacher supply requirements which are bound to occur from time to time. The introduction of the diploma of higher education and the new pattern of B.Ed courses, generally unit based, will add to this flexibility so that, in the future, many students will take the Dip.HE and


not decide to become teachers until the end of their second year, and eventually the operative intake for regulating the supply of trained teachers will be the third year.
In any event, when the reorganisation has been completed, institutions offering both teacher training and other forms of higher and further education should be able to increase or decrease the number of teachers they produce by marginal adjustments within their existing overall staffing and other resources.
I turn now to my right hon. Friend's statement of a week ago. He then said that, in the light of the Government's review of teacher supply policy, it would be necessary to reduce the number of teacher training places outside the universities to about 60,000 by 1981. This is little more than half the number of places which the colleges of education provided in 1971. The detailed implications of this for individual colleges have not yet been determined, but I would just make here two general observations. One is that it remains our intention to secure a better distribution of teacher training places in proportion to school population. This is partly so that we can continue as far as possible to provide teacher training opportunities for students who wish or need to live at home. It also reflects the desirability of ensuring that schools in all parts of the country have initial and in-service training centres relatively near at hand.
My second point is that the viability of the teacher training system as a whole would be impaired if the 60,000 places were divided amongst too many separate institutions. All the advice and representations we have received suggests that we should aim for an average size of 700–750 teacher training places per centre. This clearly has important implications for the schools concerned with teacher training, a question now being considered in detail by my noble Friend.
I wish to deal now with the situation in Hereford and Worcester and I have no doubt that the hon. Member will make his representations on the relevant points when he comes to the meeting at the Department. The county now has within its boundaries three colleges of education. In that respect it is relatively

well-provided compared with some score of counties in England and Wales which have only two colleges or fewer and, of course, the handful which have none at all.
My right hon. Friend has already approved Hereford and Worcester's proposals for two of its colleges. The City of Worcester College, which has about 1,200 places, is to widen the range of its provision to include other courses of higher education as its teacher training commitment contracts, and Shenstone New College, which now provides 850 teacher training places, is to merge with Bromsgrove College of Further Education to form a single institution offering a wide range of teacher training, other higher education and further education courses. Our present view is that these two centres will need between them to retain about 1,100 teacher training places in 1981. That figure is itself almost 60 per cent. more than the 690 places which the authority could expect to have on a strict distribution of 60,000 places in proportion to school population.
In this context, Hereford College of Education presents a very real problem. It has only 600 places, and would therefore find it very difficult to diversify from within its own resources. It is also some 25 to 30 miles from the nearest other institution concerned with higher education. That was one of the hon. Member's points. If it continues to be engaged in initial teacher training, it is therefore hard to avoid the conclusion that it will have to remain a very largely monotechnic establishment at about its present size—as indeed the authority has itself concluded and proposed.
In view of what I have just said about the county's proportionate share of 60,000 teacher training places, it would be difficult to add a further 600 to the 1,100 already envisaged for Worcester and the new institution to be created at Bromsgrove. If, alternatively, the 1,100 places were to be divided between three institutions, each teacher training unit would be unacceptably small. In either case, a monotechnic college in Hereford would represent an inflexible element in teacher supply.
In considering the future disposition of teacher training numbers, the Government must necessarily have regard also


to the respective records of individual institutions. I would be the first to agree that comparisons of this kind are often invidious and can sometimes be misleading. Nevertheless, I want to be honest with the hon. Member and give him the full picture. If we are to improve the quality of teacher training it would be foolhardy to ignore opportunities of building on existing strengths.
I regret that I must therefore point out that the available figures suggest that Hereford has to date been a less successful college than either Shenstone or Worcester. In 1973, 38 per cent. of Hereford's non-graduate intake had two or more A-levels, compared with 53 per cent. at Worcester and 42 per cent. at Shenstone. The number of fourth-year students taking a B.Ed course at Hereford in 1973 represented only 6 per cent. of the non-graduate intake of the colleges three years previously. Figures for Shenstone and for Worcester were, respectively, 12 per cent. and 19 per cent. Both sets of figures show a similar pattern for preceding years.
The hon. Member has referred to the fact that the number of candidates naming Hereford as their first choice college—this was indicated in the letter which appeared in The Times—is now almost as many as the college's student intake. However, the majority of colleges have far more first-choice applicants than they can provide places for.
These are some of the main educational considerations which my right hon. Friend will have in mind when reaching a final decision about Hereford College. It is fair to say that they are weighty considerations. However, this does not necessarily mean that they will be found persuasive in the light of the points advanced today by the hon. Member and those which the authority will shortly be making to my noble Friend. I must re-emphasise, therefore, that the college's future is still very much an open question.
Finally, the Government recognise that continuing uncertainty about the college is a matter of grave concern locally, especially to those whose livelihoods depend on the outcome. We have no wish that this situation should be prolonged more than is necessary for the issues involved to receive due consideration. I therefore very much hope that all the

interested parties will agree that the matter should be finally determined as soon as possible after my noble Friend's discussion on 8th April.

EDUCATION (KINGSWOOD)

4.6 p.m.

Mr. Terry Walker: The Kingswood constituency has many education problems which are of grave concern to the teaching staff, pupils and parents in the area. The Kingswood constituency was the southernmost part of old Gloucestershire County Council area. Because of its geographical position it tended to suffer some neglect. While some new schools were provided by way of replacement over the years from time to time they were nowhere near sufficient, bearing in mind the terriffic population bulge in the Kingswood area over the past 20 years.
Therefore, the task facing the new education authority of Avon when it took office last April was a big one. Whatever criticism I shall make of it, I want it to be understood that I recognise that it had a big problem when it took office.
Avon, which is a Tory-controlled local authority, has made many basic mistakes. The chief of these has been that decisions have been made without reference to staff and parents in the area. As the Minister well knows, the county council has informed his Department that it does not propose to take up any part of its nursery education building allocation for either this year or next year. Therefore, the essential nursery education is not being provided within the county. This decision is a scandal and an outrage. The people in the area feel let down by the shortsightedness of the Avon Tories in this matter.
I hope that the Government will not hesitate to let Avon know their feelings. I have told parents and staff who have come to me about the matter to make their representations known to the authority. The Labour minority group on the council has had discussions with me. If we had been in power on the council, Labour councillors would have accepted the allocation from the Government as they recognise the necessity of providing sound nursery education within the area.
The other great mistake made by the county of Avon was not to take the full allocation of teachers when it became an authority. That has gravely affected infant and primary education in the county.
A bitter pill to swallow has been the problem of the rising fives. Many parents are mystified to find that their children must wait until they are almost five and a half before they start school. That happened to my youngest son only last year. Classrooms are available in the schools, and the children would be able to attend if one more member of staff were appointed. People feel let down. I am sure that the full complement of teachers could have been appointed. That was another of the great mistakes made by the Avon Tories. My two older children were in school before their fifth birthday, but unfortunately that is no longer possible. At the St. Stephen's School, Sound-well, and the Bromley Heath School, Downend, there have been protest meetings of parents, and petitions have been raised spontaneously.
Primary education has also suffered from overcrowded classes because there are not enough teachers to go round. In some schools there is a shortage of accommodation. At the Tynings School at Kingswood one class meets regularly in the entrance hall. It is no wonder parents are worried. Due to pressure put on the local authority by the parents and myself a Terrapin building has arrived, but, true to form, there is no furniture for it and there is no heating. The school, which was built for about 280 pupils will have more than 400 after Easter. The facilities there are not adequate and the hall and playground are not big enough.
The existing schools are barriers to the plans for a fully comprehensive system being implemented at once. They were built mainly to perpetuate a grammar and secondary school set-up. That is why they are unable to convert quickly. If money were available, we could have comprehensive education in a short time. I am sure that that is what everyone now wants.
There are three five-form entry schools in the Kingswood area—Grange School for Boys, Grange School for Girls and the Kingsfield School, which is still selective in some respects. Those are the

schools that we are most worried about. We earnestly hope that they will become seven-form or eight-form entry, with a sixth-form college, and that the Kingsfield School will be rebuilt. The school is mainly a collection of First World War army huts.
To meet the bulge in the area, the new school at Hanham must be proceeded with as soon as possible, because after September many of my young constituents where I live in Hanham will have to make the long trek to Keynsham, formerly part of Somerset and now part of Avon, because the schools in the area are overcrowded and there are no places for them.
In addition, schools such as Rodway School badly need decoration, and precious little is allowed for it in the estimates. Only last year, after pressure from the parent-teacher association and myself, badly-needed fire escapes were put in, but not before newspaper articles caused a public outcry. Such an outcry should not have been necessary to enable urgent work to be carried out in schools.
The Sir Bernard Lovell School at Oldland Common is also a great problem. It was planned as a 10-form entry by the Gloucestershire County Council and has been cut to a seven-form entry by Avon without consultation with staff, parents or governors. Not only parents but 68 of the teaching staff protested to Avon because the career structure at the Sir Bernard Lovell School was shattered by the decision to make the school only a seven-form entry. We need a truly comprehensive—not selective—system to replace the present hotch-potch which was left by the previous local authority.
I fully recognise that all these matters will require the expenditure of a good deal of money. This is why I want to stress the capital programme. If all these matters were to be put right obviously money would need to be expended, but the capital programme by the Avon County Council amounting to£2·05 million, including minor works, is not sufficient. New counties such as Avon need special capital. I know that many Labour Members were extremely worried when local government was reorganised. They felt that new counties such as Avon, covering a vast area taking in Somerset and


Gloucestershire, would require a great deal of capital. We made pleas on that score at the time. Now the time is upon us, but if confidence in the system is to be restored £16 million is needed over the next three years.
The people I represent want this money to be spent. As I go round my constituency people are puzzled and say "Now that we have a Labour Government, surely things will change soon." It is no good the Department of Education and Science or I myself saying that we do not take responsibility for these matters. It must be of concern to everybody to ensure that the resources and brains of our young people are not wasted. Greater supervision of educational facilities must take place and more resources must be put into education. Indeed, a revolution is necessary.
The education of children is a partnership between school and parent. That is why parents should be consulted and encouraged to participate in decision-making. I deeply regret that it has not been the practice of Avon to consult people about forthcoming changes. Parents are demanding a better deal for their children. Parents, pupils and staff are co-operating in our area as never before. The future of our country is in the hands of the young. I have great personal hopes for this country, but I believe that we must put everything we can into a system of education based not on selectivity but on equal opportunity for all boys and girls in all parts of the nation.

4.18 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): By the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I wish to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Walker) on raising an important issue which affects his constituency.
I share some of my hon. Friend's sentiments. I am old-fashioned about education in the sense that I believe that educational services should be the spearhead in ironing out inequalities and injustices and in advancing the quality of life generally. I would not dissent in any way from my hon. Friend's remarks. I hope that I shall give him adequate answers

on some of the difficult problems which he has raised.
The Avon authority shares with a great number of authorities unique problems following local government reorganisation. That authority now has educational responsibility for an area which, in the days before reorganisation, was served by four separate local education authorities. The task in creating a single administrative unit which provides educational services for a population in excess of 900,000 has been formidable. Furthermore, at a time of economic difficulty and restraints on capital building the authority has faced a heavy burden.
Most of our building resources are allocated on what we term "basic need criteria". This year the 1975–76 programme provides for just over£139 million to be spent on the capital cost of school buildings. Of that sum, only£4·3 million is allocated for replacements or improvements. The remainder of the sum will provide schools for children who would otherwise not have a school roof over their heads.
I visit many areas. Indeed, I have visited the Avon area. There are many schools which I should like to see replaced immediately and which should have been bulldozed down years ago. In the present circumstances of economic restraint we have had to divert well over 90 per cent. of our allocation towards basic need. This year we have made a blanket allocation—which I know is not enough—to each authority, so that they may decide where the real need exists, because we believe that each authority knows that better than we do. Therefore, it is for them to decide their own priorities.
I do not wish to mislead the House into thinking that we are giving the local authorities an easy task, because what they want to do is far more than the allocation will permit, and I hope that my hon. Friend will view the activities of the authorities in the light of those restraints which I have indicated.
I understand that the £2·05 million provided in the programme for 1975–76 is subject to discussion by the local authority. There is a project in the 1974–75 programme to enlarge the Kings-field School, which forms part of the authority's total major works programme of £1·6 million, and which will add 400


places to the school's recognised accommodation. We are now awaiting from the authority notification by the end of this month of how it proposes to use the £2·05 million. The advice and experience of my Department is always available to assist local authorities in making the best use of the resources that have been allocated.
I wish to say a word about the nursery provision. 1 have been in the education service all my life. I have come to the conclusion that the most neglected part of the education service has been preschool provision. I believe that that is the greatest educational advance which we can foster. Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of children will have missed out by the time they reach the age of five. They are also-rans because of neglect before the age of five. Therefore those children—who are "Born to Fail"—can be compensated for the inadequate background and environment in which they are growing only by the provision of pre-school education. That is why, despite all the economic restraints, the Government have preserved the nursery school programme.
Therefore it was with some distress that we learned from the Avon Authority that not only was it not taking up the 1974–75 nursery building allocation but it was also not taking up the 1975–76 allocation. There have been a number of requests for the nursery provision allocation to be used in the other parts of the education sector—that is for primary and secondary school buildings. We have resisted them on the educational grounds that I have put forward because we think that the development of nursery provision is a very high priority.
Therefore authorities such as Avon which say that they are not prepared to use their allocations are seeing those allocations given to other authorities which are eager to provide this opportunity for pre-school education. This is a matter for my hon. Friend and for parents, teachers and others interested in the education service to pursue with their own authorities.
I want to say a few words about secondary reorganisation. A number of authorities have said that they are anxious to go comprehensive, and the response

from Avon is favourable in the sense that its reply to our 4/74 Circular indicates that it wants to abolish selection. But the injection of massive resources in order to go comprehensive is not possible. We have said to authorities that we believe that getting rid of selection of any kind in secondary education is the first priority for educational advance. Therefore, it is for every authority to examine all its resources—teacher resources and building resources—and to submit plans to the Secretary of State so that we can get rid of selection and have genuine comprehensive reorganisation.
There are great difficulties. It has been reported that I have said that buildings do not matter. That is not the case. Buildings are very important. I know that the injection of building resources can make a tremendous difference to the morale of teachers and parents and can help along comprehensive reorganisation. At the same time, where the will and determination is there, the teaching profession, in co-operation with parents and with the authorities, can abolish selection and go genuinely comprehensive without the injection of massive new resources. I know that Avon is getting down to this task, and again we shall be anxious to co-operate in order to get the right answer.
Education is a partnership. There is a special relationship which is good for the education service between the Department and local authorities. But the real responsibility rests with the local authorities. Perhaps I might illustrate that by pointing out that, whereas the quota of teachers allocated to Avon for 1974–75 was 7,375, in January the authority was employing 252 teachers fewer than the quota, which amounted to 3·4 per cent. The quota for the educational year 1975–76 is 7,623, and that figure has not been questioned by the Avon authority.
It is for the local authority to determine the number of teachers who will be employed. I know that the authority is under pressure from teachers' associations and parents. I welcome pressure, and I welcome consultation and cooperation. The rate support grant which is fixed by the Government includes an element for the payment of these teachers, but the final decision as to the disposal of


the rate support grant is made by the local authority.
We look with interest at the controversy that is taking place in Avon about the disposal of educational resources. I agree with my hon. Friend that the greatest asset to the British nation is our young people. Therefore, ratepayers, taxpayers and everybody else ought to recognise that a contribution in money terms towards a sound educational service which gives full opportunities to all our

children is not only a great investment but value for money.
If my hon. Friend has any particular points that he wishes to take up with me, I shall be only too pleased to hear his views and try to help.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at half-past Four o'clock till Monday 7th April, pursuant to the resolution of the House of 17th March.